Jordana Dym. A Sovereign State of Every Village City, State and Nation in Independence Era Central America

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bteedth rough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that Ihe author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9 black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A Sovereign State o f Every Village: City, State and Nation in Independence-era Central America, ca. 1760-1850
by
Jordana Dym
A dissertation submited in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department o f History New York University September, 2000
Profe:
Ada Ferrer
Professor Antonio Feros
UMI Number 9985245
Copyright 2000 by Dym, Jordana All rights reserved.
__ ___
UMI
__<Mf
UMI Microform9985245 Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Jordana Dym All Rights Reserved, 2000
Cities that are established and founded are the security and constancy of conquered kingdoms, and, more, their principal heads, for they are the center for establishment of the first armed forces, and political government, for application when one or the other is needed. They further are the retreat that receives the militias that return victorious or routed, and in them commerce, the principal nerve that keeps and nourishes monarchies, happily plays. In the cities the cult o f God is resplendent with sumptuous and rich temples, and they are adorned not only with illustrious houses, important and renowned, but with venerable and respectable ecclesiastic and secular tribunals. Their foundations should thus be well considered, not just for their preservation but for their growth. Francisco Fuentes y Guzman (1642-1699), Recordation Florida , Book 5, Chapter 4. (ca. 1686)
* *
The principal guarantee o f order rests in local authorities... one o f whose principal duties is to conserve public peace. Father Juan Jose Aycinena, Minister of Interior, Justice and Ecclesiastic Affairs, Guatemala. 1837: Circular to Local Governors, 19 December 1837
One o f the principal defects of the Spanish Constitution, that here we have wanted to follow blindly, is to overturn the municipal regime o f the populations, established by use and custom, attempting to set up a uniform system that the ignorant multitudeover which habit holds the only moral forcecannot understand with ease or rapidity. It is something that, evidently, has always been felt, particularly in modem times: when the municipal regime is suddenly upset, the public calm is altered, because [the change] directly attacks the primary base o f the social order, which is the specific regimen of the pueblos established by themselves, learned by tradition and rooted in habit. One can see that one should not modify the municipal regime, the basis of all republican government. Mariano Aycinena, 1845, Dissenting Opinion on the Modification of Municipal Law, Guatemala
DEDICATION For my parents, Clive L. Dym and Rita T.Gelb.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project has been made possible due to generous financial support from New York Universitys Graduate School o f Arts and Sciences, Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, International Center for Advanced Studies and King Juan Carlos I Center. Special thanks to program directors Professors Christopher Mitchell, Thomas Bender and Jim Fernandez for their warm support o f this project. Additional research funding from Spains Ministry of Foreign Affairs permitted my first research trip to the Archivo General de Indias in Seville, Spain. The advice, encouragement and attention o f Professors Ada Ferrer, Antonio Feros, Aldo Lauria-Santiago, Sinclair Thompson, William Roseberry and Thomas Abercrombie have repeatedly served to clarify, challenge and correct this work in all o f the stages o f preparation and production. I was fortunate to work with a dynamic group o f scholars, whose range o f knowledge and experience regarding political and cultural processes in Spain and Latin America has greatly enriched this work. I am also indebted to the directors o f the Archivo Historico Nacional (Honduras), Francisco Maldonado, and his counterparts in the national archives o f El Salvador and Guatemala, Eugenia Lopez and Julio Diaz for their support and assistance. Without the advice o f the researchers and staff o f the Archivo Historico del Arquidiocesis de Guatemala, I would not have found all o f the correspondence that proved among the most interesting evidence o f post-independence municipal involvement in regional and national politics. In both Tegucigalpa and Sonsonate, municipal archivists proved the vi
key to finding old town council records without which reconstructing the activities of those city governments would have been next to impossible. It was a pleasure to find so many municipal documents intact in countries in which civil war followed by neglect and disintrest have contributed to the destruction o f the nineteenth-century local historical record. Finally, the staff o f the Archivo General de Indias, Biblioteca Nacional, and Archivo Historico Nacional (Madrid) o f Spain, and o f the archives of the French Ministry o f Foreign Affairs, were invaluable resources. Friends and colleagues in Central America, Europe and the U.S. have also provided the material, intellectual and emotional support that helped both author and project advance. Their numbers include: Lie. Miguel Angel Alvarez A., Xiomara Avendafio, Marvin Barahona, Christophe Belaubre, Sylvie Bermann, Joel Budd, Alejandro Caneque, Matt Childs, Antonella Fabri, Lyn Frazier, Guido Galli, Sylvestre Gobart, Alice Hurley, Anne Jefferson, Guillaume Jeol, Carolyn Kahn, Craig V. Lewis, Paul Lokken, Franôise Moinet, Kathryn A. Moler, Harvey Neptune, Norma Novelli, Leticia Oyuela, Lie. Marco Antonio and Monica Palacios, Jose Luis Pimentel B., Clara Arellano R., Arturo and Luis Pedro Taracena Arriola, and Miles Wortman. Special recognition goes to Abigail Dyer and Scott E. Mulligan for extraordinary service in the final stages o f preparation.
Thank you.
vii
ABSTRACT A Sovereign State o f Every Village: City, State and Nation in Independence-era Central America, ca. 1760-1850 considers the often overlooked role o f cities in the process of state- and nation-formation in early independent Central America. I argue that the city, its councilors and its former councilors (who included governors, presidents and military officers) did the brunt o f the military, legislative and political work that transformed colonial provinces from weak administrative districts with ambiguous political identities and divided interiors into viable states with basic governments and articulated national ideologies. My analysis shows Central American nation-state formation to be a city-driven, non-linear process that complicates the traditional model o f a single Central American colony that divided automatically into five nation-states with predetermined boundaries. Based on extensive research in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, the United States and Spain, the dissertation addresses themes critical not only to Central American history but to Latin American history more broadly. Recent scholarship o f nineteenth-century Latin America has focused consistently but indirectly on municipal influence in studies of peasants and community politics as well as in analysis o f local and provincial influences on state formation. By bringing the role o f city government to the forefront, while at the same time analyzing capital and provincial cities as elements of the same political tradition and system, my work crosses a divide in this scholarship that has seen either parallel or opposed but not fundamentally interrelated processes in city-centered political activity of
viii
Creoie elites and o f mestizo and Indian villagers. My project provides a framework to incorporate insights o f both local and regional studies and to move beyond attributions of anarchic or separatist tendencies o f "regionalism" in order to explore the political operation and connections between local identity, provincial divisions and nation-state formation. Although the study takes its evidence from Central America, the implications bear comparison with concomitant processes elsewhere in the former Iberian empire, and other moments o f decolonization.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication Page Acknowledgments Abstract List o f Figures List of Tables List o f Appendices List o f Abbreviations Introduction Chapter 1: A Republic o f Cities: the Kingdom o f Guatemala, 1524-1760 Chapter 2: City & Colonial State, 1542-1760 v vi viii xii xiii xv xvii 1 22 63
Chapter 3: Bourbon Town Council & Spanish State: 1760-1807, Part 1: The First Reforms: Taxation and Real Hacienda , 1760-1785 Chapter 4: Bourbon Town Council & Spanish State: 1760-1807, Part 2: The Intendancy Reforms, 1785-1807 Chapter 5: We ought only to obey our Mayors : City and State under a Constitutional Monarchy, 1809-1821 217 157 112
Chapter 6: Anarchic Dogma, Natural Liberty, New Societies: the Central American Municipality in Independence, 1821-1823 Chapter 7: Republican States: City, State and Nation in Central America, 1824-1839 Conclusion 341 422 277
Table of Contents (Continued)
Appendices Bibliography
429 526
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11 Fig. 12 Fig. 13 Fig. 14
Map, Audiencia de Guatemala, ca. 1600 Map, Audiencia de Guatemala, 1657 Map, Guatemala and Yucatan, 1671 Map, Kingdom o f Guatemala, ca. 1690 (Cities) Map, Audiencia de Guatemala, 18th Century Commercial Trade Routes o f Colonial Central America
xviii xix
XX
xxi 33 42
Map, The Kingdom of Guatemala: Principal Agricultural Products 43 Plan of Guatemala City, 1776 Jurisdiction o f New Guatemala, ca. 1776 Alcaldia Mayor de San Salvador, 1778 Road to Omoa, ca. 1780s Map, Kingdom o f Guatemala, ca. 1786 Chains of Political Authority (Secular), Kingdom o f Guatemala Map, Kingdom o f Guatemala, 1811 47 85 105 127 165 166 216
LIST OF TABLES Chapter 1 Table 1.1: Foundation o f the Principal Spanish Towns and Cities o f the Kingdom of Guatemala, 1523-1821 Table 1.2: Kingdom o f Guatemala, Frequency o f Mails, 1794 Chapter 2 Table 2.1: Government o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala, 1542-1786 Table 2.2: Alcaldes Mayores, Chimaltenango and Sacatepequez, 1774-1820 Chapter 3 Table 3.1: Royal Income from different sources, 1723-1725 Table 3.2: Guatemalan Tax Collection, 1781-1819 119 129 89 102 28 38
Table 3.3: Population & Racial Composition o f Selected Cities & Towns o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala, ca. 1800 Chapter 4 Table 4.1: Political Division of the Kingdom o f Guatemala in the 18th c., before and after Intendancies of 1787 Table 4.2: Prices paid for Regimientos, Kingdom o f Guatemala, 1790-1807 Chapter 5 Table 5.1: Mayors o f Guatemala City, 1808-1821, with college degrees 250 160 192 149
xiii
List of Tables (continued)
Chapter 6 Table 6.1: Select Declarations o f Independence, CentralAmerica, 1821-1822 280 Table 6.2: Juntas Gubernativas, Central America,1821-1823 297
Table 6:3: City Councilors of Guatemala City, Sonsonate, Tegucigalpa, 1821 337 Chapter 7 Table 7.1: Capitals, Central America, 1825-1842 Table 7.2: Principal Civil Wars, 1825-1842 Table 7.3: Institutions o f Republican Central America, 1825-1850 Table 7.4: Promotions o f Communities, 1823-1836 Table 7.5: University Graduates and Lawyers, Guatemala City Council, 1821-1850 Table 7.6: Tegucigalpa Municipales in Executive Office, 1821-1850 Table 7.7: Guatemala City Municipales in Executive Office, 1821-1850 Table 7.8: Provincials in the Guatemala City Town Council, 1809-1850 Table 7.9: Guatemala City Municipales who represented other districts in Congress Table 7.10: Municipales who were Presidents o f El Salvador Congresses, 1824-1850 416 415 402 411 411 414 356 358 368 372
xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Political & religious status: Spanish Cities, Kingdom o f Guatemala, 1523-1821 Appendix B: City Councils o f Central America, 1524-1821 Appendix C: Political Divisions o f Central America, 1654-1796 Appendix D: Distances between Towns and Cities, Kingdom o f Guatemala Appendix E: Population & Racial Composition o f Central America, ca. 1800 E 1: Distribution o f Population, by Districts, 1778-1800 E2: Population o f Asuncion de Guatemala, ca. 1800 E3: Population & Racial Composition o f Select Cities & Towns, Central America, ca. 1800 Appendix F: Jurisdiction & Population o f the Alcaldias Mayores o f Sonsonate and Tegucigalpa, ca. 1778-1821 Appendix G: Commerce o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala, ca. 1800 G1: Commerce o f the Kingdom of Guatemala, ca. 1800 G2: Produce, Alcaldia Mayor, Sonsonate, 1765 G3: Produce, Alcaldia Mayor, Tegucigalpa, 1765 Appendix H: Price Comparison, Regimientos Sencillos, Kingdom o f Guatemala, 17th and 18th centimes Appendix I: Price Comparison, Regimientos Dobles, Kingdom o f Guatemala, 17th and 18th centuries Appendix J: Sales o f Municipal Office, Kingdom o f Guatemala, 1750-1821 Appendix K: Town Councilors, Asuncion de Guatemala, 1776-1850 Appendix L: Town Councilors, Tegucigalpa, 1787-1850 Appendix M: Town Councilors, Sonsonate, 1787-1850 Appendix N: Creoles and Spaniards: Mayors and Syndics, Santiago and Asuncion de Guatemala, 1700-1800 500 454 456 465 480 490 452 450 451 451 443 442 439 440 429 433 435 438
xv
List of Appendices (continued) Appendix O: Creoles and Spaniards: Regidores Bienales, Guatemala City, 1784-1792 Appendix P: Mayors, Asuncion de Guatemala, 1776-1820 Appendix Q: Central American Deputies to Suprema Junta Central, Cortes Espanolas, Diputaciones Provinciales (1810-1820) Appendix R: Political Divisions, Central American Federation and the States o f Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, 1825-1855 R l: Federation, 1825: States, Departments, Towns & Villages R2: Federation, 1824: Cabeceras with juntas populares Federal presidential elections R4: Territorial Division, State o f Guatemala, 1825 R5: Territorial Division, State o f Guatemala, 1839 & 1840 R6: Departments, State o f Guatemala, 1851 R7: Territorial Division, State o f El Salvador, 1824 R8: Territorial Division, State o f El Salvador, 1855 R9: Territorial Division, State o f Honduras, 1825 R10: Territorial Division, State o f Honduras, 1831 (not implemented) R l 1: Territorial Division, Costa Rica, 1825-1838 Appendix S: Important Political Events, Central America, 1825-1842 520 520 523 514 515 515 516 518 518 518 518 519 509 505 507
R3: Federation: Juntas Electorates de Partido that voted in the 1825
xvi
ABBREVIATIONS AGI AGCA AGN AHAG AHN AMS AMT ANH Art. BAE BN Exp. Leg. MAE RC RO Recopilacion U. Archivo General de Indias, Sevilla Archivo General de Centroamerica, Guatemala City Archivo General de la Nacion, San Salvador Archivo Historico Aquidiocesano Francisco de Paula Garcia Pelaez de Guatemala, Guatemala City Archivo Historico Nacional, Madrid Archivo Municipal de Sonsonate Archivo Municipal de Tegucigalpa Archivo Nacional de Honduras, Tegucigalpa Article Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid Expediente Legajo Archives du Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres, Paris Real Cedula Real Orden Recopilacion de leyes de los reinos de las Indias, 1680 University
xvii
Fig. 1: Audiencia de Guatemala, ca. 1600
Source: Antonio Herrera y Tordesillas, Historia general de los hechos de los Castellanos en las islas y tierrafirme del mar oceano (Courtesy, Library o f Congress, Geography & Maps Division).
xviii
Fig. 2: Audiencia de Guatemala, 1657
Source: N. Sanson d 'Abbeville, L'Amerique en plusieurs cartes (Paris, 1657), Subject 7 (Courtesy, Library of Congress, Geography & Maps Division).
xix
Fig. 3: Yucatan and Guatemala, ca 1671
Source: Montanus, Yucatan Conventus luridici Hispaniae Novae Pars Occidentulis et Guatimala Conventus luridicus, (Berlin, 1671) Courtesy, Library o f Congress, Geography & Maps Division.
XX
Fig. 4: Kingdom o f Guatemala, ca. 1690
F r$m Gntmnn't " HterJ/ua* / Y i r / i a , ivritltn in iht itvtnutnlk ttninrj.
S*tnt
6*
WJi
Source: Francisco Fuentes y Guzman, Recordacion Florida, reprinted by George Barrie and Sons, 1905.
xxi
Map of Central A m tric a .
11**10
Introduction Writing at the midpoint o f the nineteenth century, Argentine statesman Domingo Faustino Sarmiento (1811-1888) observed that the South American republics have all, more or less, passed through the propensity to decompose into small fractions, attracted by an anarchical and rash aspiration to a ruinous, dark independence without representation on the ladder o f nations. Central America has made a sovereign state of every village: the old Colombia yielded to three republics; the United Provinces o f the Rio de la Plata (Argentina) dissolved into Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay and the Argentine Confederation, and even this last took the zeal o f dissolution to constitute itself into a chaos without constitution and without known rule...1 Central America did not, in fact, turn each village into a sovereign state, but, by 1850, one kingdom had splintered into five republics and a Mexican province. As Sarmiento suggests, the process by which the Kingdom o f Guatemala became a weak countrythe Central American Federation (1821-1839) before succumbing after twenty years o f civil war into the republics o f Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica was not unique. Most South American countries suffered similar fragmentation, and the exceptions, Mexico and Brazil, experienced the same internal strife, if not the ultimate dismemberment of their colonial territory. No one has yet adequately explained the origins or endemic nature o f violence in societies known for little full-scale rebellion under Spains rule, nor the reasons that allowed some but not all colonial territories to hold together. This work examines the Central American case. Hopefully, answering the question o f why one apparently stable Spanish colony
1 Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, Argiropolis ([Buenos Aires]: Secretaria de Cultura de la Nacion, A:Z Editora, 1994), p. 79. The text, which proposed a new capital for the Federated States o f the Rio de la Plata, was originally published in 1850.
was unable to maintain political unity after independence will have implications for the political processes that fragmented the others. That no explanation has emerged that ties together the upheaval in different parts o f Spanish America in the early nineteenth century is not due to neglect. Since Sarmientos time, historians have pursued the question o f why the majority o f Spains former colonies failed to consolidate their vast territories into extensive republics or federations after their independence in the early nineteenth century. Early works, and particularly works by contemporaries to the events, tended to look at divisions between elite factions in the new states, assigning blame to conservatives or liberals and focusing primarily on the political activities within a national capital.2 Early twentiethcentury historians pointed out the Spanish colonial heritage o f a semi-feudal society, unprepared for the freedoms and responsibilities o f democracy.3 The new history o f the 1960s through 1980s produced a silence in the literature, in part due to a turn to social and cultural rather than political history, in part due to events in Latin America that limited scholarly access to archives, and in part due to the daunting task of
' For a study of early North American Latin Americanists see Alfred M. Tozzer, Stephens, and Prescott, Bancroft and others, Los Mayas antignos (Mexico: Colegio de Mexico, 1941), pp. 33-60. David Fowler has provided a recent historiography o f the Mexican case, "Introduction: The "Forgotten Century": Mexico, 1810-1910." Bulletin o f Latin American Research 15:1 (1995), pp. 1-4. See also Peter F. Guardino and Charles Walker, The State, Society and Politics in Peru and Mexico in the Late Colonial and Early Republican Periods, Latin American Perspectives 19:2 (Spring 1992), pp. 10-43; Timothy E. Anna. The rule o f Agustin de Iturbide: a reappraisal, Journal o f Latin American Studies. 17:1 (May 1985), pp. 79-119; and Josefina Zoraida Vazquez, Un viejo tema: el federalismo y el centralismo Historia Mexicana 42:3 (1993), pp. 621-631; and Jose Agustin de la Puente Candamo, Historiografia de la Independencia del Peru,''Revista de Historia de America 59 (1967), pp. 280-293. Well-known proponents of partisan views include Lucas Alaman, Silvio Zavala, Jose Maria Luis Mora and Carlos Maria Bustamante for Mexico. For an example o f historical writing on the impact o f liberals and conservatives, see for example, Charles A. Hale for Mexico.
assessing a period with multiple leaders, multiple and shifting centers o f power, multiple and ephemeral governments and innumerable conflicts and policy changes.4 By the 1990s, stability and a new set o f questions led to a wealth o f studies of post-independence period in Mexico and Peru has revived interest in the forgotten century. and turned the historical gaze to the provinces that made creation o f a strong central state a task only a strong man, or caudillo, could accomplish. These studies have complicated the understanding o f elite political ideas, highlighted the struggles o f the lower classes to make their voices heard for and against policies emanating from distant capitals, and looked sympathetically on attempts by provincial elites to influence the outcome o f political and military confrontations on a national stage.5 Brazil has benefited from a similar attempt to unravel the dynamic o f strife between a powerful capital and distant provinces desirous of political and economic independence.6
J See for example, the works o f Hubert Bancroft. For more recent adaptations of this approach, see Stanley J. and Barbara Stein, The Colonial Heritage o f Latin America: Essays on Economic Dependence in Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970). 4 See, for example, Lynn Hunt, ed.. The New Cultural Historv: essays (Berkeley: U. o f Califiomia Press, 1989). s Brian Hamnett. Benito Juarez, Early Liberalism, and the Regional Politics of Oaxaca. Bulletin o f Latin American Research (1991): 10(1): 3-22; David Fowler, Introduction: The Forgotten Century: Mexico, 1810-1910; Jaime E. Rodriguez O., ed., Mexico in the age o f democratic revolutions, 17501850 (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1994); Will Fowler, Mexico in the age o f proposals, 1821-1853 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998); Timothy Anna, Inventing Mexico: Provincehood and Nationhood After Independence, Bulletin o f Latin American Research 15:1(1995), pp. 7-17; Peter Guardino, Peasants, politics, and the formation o f Mexico's national state: Guerrero. 1800-1857 (Stanford, CA: Stanford U. Press, 1996). For Peru, see Mark Thumer, From Two Republics to One Divided: Contradictions o f Postcolonial Nationmaking in Andean Peru (Durham, NC: Duke U. Press, 1997); Sarah C. Chambers, From Subjects to Citizens: Honor, Gender and Politics in Arequipa, Peru, 1780-1854 (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999); and Charles Walker, Smoldering Ashes: Cuzco and the creation o f Republican Peru, 1780-1840 (Durham: Duke U. Press, 1999). 6 Roderick Barman, Brazil: The Forging o f a Nation, 1798-1852 (Stanford: Stanford U. Press, 1988), Emilia Viotti da Costa, The Brazilian Empire: myths & histories (Chapel Hill: University o f North Carolina Press, 2000).
The historiography on Central American independence has followed the general arc, although focus on provincial tensions in an attempt to explain the instability that prevailed in the 1820s and 1830s was a constant, rather than intermittent, theme. Historians contemporary to the events set the stage for their successors by blaming competing elite political groups and their partisan sniping.7 Along with twentiethcentury studies, they further argued that conflict o f provincial capitals and elites with those of the colonial and national capital, Guatemala City, doomed the federal experiment and led to the failure of union.8 A less common critique argued that conflict between dominant classes and the masses within the separate states provoked the fragmentation of the period.9 This Marxist approach, which served as the underpinning o f much recent North American scholarship, has found little favor among Central Americanists, in part, perhaps, because o f the current political climate. The overwhelming evidence o f wrangling among elites in the principal centers o f power, however, suggests other reasons for the reluctance o f scholars to focus solely on class tensions within the Central American Federation. However, in recent years the kind o f local study undertaken by Peruvianists and Meixcanists has begun to appear in the
' Alejandro Marure. Bosquejo historico de las revoluciones de Centroamerica, desde 1811 hasta 1834, 2 vols. Vol. 65-66, Col. 15 de Septiembre (Guatemala: Ministerio de Educacion Publica, 1960 (1838)), and Manuel Montiifar y Coronado, Memorias para la Historia de la Revolucion de Centroamerica, 2 vols, Vol. 65-66, Col. 15 de Septiembre, (Guatemala: Ministerio de Educacion Publica, 1963(1832)). 8 Thomas L. Karnes, The Failure o f Union: Central America 1824-1960, Chapel Hill, NC: University o f North Carolina Press, 1961); Mario Rodriguez, The Cadi: Experiment in Central America, 1808 to 1826. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1978); Miles Wortman, Government and Society in Central America, 1680-1840 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982); and Carlos Melendez, La Independencia de Centroamerica (Madrid: Editorial MAPFRE, 1993). 9 Julio Pinto Soria, Raices historicas del estado en Centroamerica (Guatemala: Editorial Universitaria de Guatemala, 1980) and Centroamerica, de la colonia al Estado nacional, 1800-1840 (Guatemala: Editorial Universitaria de Guatemala 1986).
literature. One particularly fine example is a study o f the breakaway state o f Los Altos (Guatemala) examined the political processes o f one province to show the more complicated interactions between center and periphery, rich and poor, indigenous and white, in the period.1 0 For all their differences, these arguments emphasized the breakdown o f political structures in the federal period o f 1821-1839, not the beginnings o f a new political order. This emphasis has led to general support for the case that effective state formation began with the Conservative strong-man governments o f the 1840s, and that nationalist ideology (inventing nations) within states emerged as a powerful discourse only in the 1870s.11 To date, the only exception to this rule is an in-process work by historian Victor Hugo Acuna that posits that the ideological elements for a Costa Rican national identity were part o f the rhetoric o f the 1820s.1 2 Certainly, independence-era Central America suffered disputes in every province that would suggest fracture o f states rather than their construction. The cities o f Tegucigalpa and Sonsonate both sought to head independent states in the federation made up of their colonial districts before agreeing to participate in the larger entities of El Salvador and Honduras. San Salvador championed the establishment o f a bishopric to mark its provinces religious as well as secular independence from Guatemalan
1 0 Arturo Taracena Arriola, Sueho Criollo, Realidad Ladino, Pesadilla Indigena: El Estado de Los Altos, 1740-1850 (Guatemala: CIRMA, 1998). " Ralph Lee Woodward, Jr., Rafael Carrera and the emergence o f the Republic o f Guatemala, 1821-1871 (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1993); Hector Lindo-Fuentes and Lyle Gudmundson. Central America, 1821-1871 (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabamaa Press, 1995); Stephen Palmer, A Liberal Discipline: Inventing Nations in Guatemala and Costa Rica, 1870-1900, PhD Thesis, Columbia U., 1990. 1 2 Victor Hugo Acuna, Comunidad politica e identidad politica en Costa Rica entrel821 y 1870, V Conferencia de Historia Centroamericana, San Salvador, July 2000.
political control, setting off the isthmus first civil war in 1824. At the same time, the cities o f Granada and Leon began the first o f a series o f civil wars that brutalized Nicaragua almost from the moment of the federations creation. Costa Rica, initially an exceptionally harmonious province, later experienced a civil war engaged by its four district capitals that led to the permanent relocation o f the state capital from Cartago, its colonial center, to San Jose. Also in the 1830s, Creole elites in Quezaltenango, an important Indian city in Guatemalas highlands, tried repeatedly to attract neighboring districts into a breakaway state, with brief success in 1838-1839.1 '* The federal capital moved from Guatemala City to Sonsonate, to San Vicente, to San Salvador in search o f an acceptable home. Overall, the period between 1821 and 1839 was characterized by unstable state and federal government, peripatetic capitals, and numerous military conflicts.14 By 1848, the federal congress decreed that each state could withdraw from the republic should it so desire, but the federation was already extinct. Simply adding up the number and types of disputes, one could conclude, with Sarmiento, that in Central America every village had indeed attempted to form a state. Yet at the end o f the 1840s, what emerged was not a state for each disgruntled municipal district, but the same five states o f the Central American Federation solidified
1 3 See the conceptually and informationally interesting book by Arturo Taracena Arriola, Sueiio Criollo. Realidad Ladino, Pesadilla Indigena: El Estado de Los Altos. 1740-1850 (Guatemala: CIRMA, 1998). 1 4 In all. a hundred and twenty five heads o f the five states of Central America and its federation presided over 143 official military engagements between 1821 and 1842. Although relatively few lives were lost in these engagements (7088 dead, 1735 wounded), many non-combatants bore the consequences of requisitioning passing troops (Marure, Bosquejo histdrico de las revoluciones de Centroamerica, pp. 133157; Rodriguez, The Cadi: Experiment, p. 251-253). The list of unsanctioned uprisings for Guatemala and El Salvador tops 65 for the twenty years following independence. Most o f these uprisings are associated with particular towns. Index, Motines and Asonadas, 1821-1850, Archivo General de Centro America (AGCA) Catalogue, Drawers 11-49 (Guatemala), 11-50 (El Salvador).
into sovereign countries. However reluctantly, Quezaltenango, Sonsonate, Tegucigalpa, Granada, Cartago and numerous other towns and villages accepted their integration into larger political districts. Thus, the failure o f federal unity is really only one o f two trends that historians should note in this period. Historians must also propose to explain how weak and internally divided colonial provinces formed viable independent states. Such an explanation requires tackling two principal paradoxes o f the period. First, in a period succeeding the supposed program o f centralization undertaken by the Bourbons in the 1780s, to what can one attribute the origin, strength and endurance of such municipal movements, which were legion and not limited to the years immediately following independence? Second, what mechanisms led provinces to survive as states in a period when most were rocked by civil wars that were, in turn, engendered, for the most part, by secessionist movements led by their principal municipal districts? To address this paradox, we must first stop assuming the existence o f the independent state as a pre-determined entity. Based on post-independence political activity, it is insufficient to take Central Americas state-formation to be nothing more than a formal renaming of Spanish provinces as unified national states, either at independence or with the failure o f union. Not only the civil wars o f the period, but the behaviors of the early national and federal congresses, demonstrate that the formation of political states was a process in which numerous claims were considered. Having recognized that political conflicts o f the period originated in contests between municipal elites and divided the interior space o f each province, we must now begin to ask how
that division in the end brought about the sovereignty, rather than fragmentation, of each federal state.1 5 This different picture emerges by shifting the timeline for analysis of stateformation not forward from the mid-nineteenth century but back fifty years prior to independence, to the period o f the Bourbon Reforms (1765-1807). Also required is to change the scale o f analysis from the provinces that fitfully emerged to a study o f the municipalities that made them up. Breaking down the provinces into their constituent unitsthe cities and their politically, economically and socially dependent hinterlands filled with smaller towns and their authoritieswe continue a colonial history that put political legitimacy in the city o f the sixteenth-century conquest. We also find a long, if uneven policy begun by Bourbon officials, expanded by the liberal Spanish parliament o f 1808-1814, and consolidated by the leaders of post-independence state and federal governments, to foster elite and popular political organization through municipal institutions. In the Bourbon period, the city councils of Central America were encouraged to increase their revenues, and limited council functions were extended to an increasing number of villages. Under the Spanish Constitution (1812-1814; 1820-1821) any town with 1000 residents was authorized a full-fledged city council, with all o f the privileges and responsibilities that had previously been reserved for a dozen Spanish towns and cities. Furthermore, the seats on the councils were opened to general election. For the first time, Indians, Spaniards and their mixed-race descendants operated under one legal
1 5 Xiomara Avendano Rojas, Procesos Electorates y Clase Politica en la Federacion de Centroamerica,
system. After independence, the Central American governments reinforced the role o f municipal councils, extending them to communities with as few as 200 residents, and including men o f African origin among the citizens eligible to vote and serve in office. In all periods, the governments favored city councils as state agents in a vast countryside where governors and other central officials were few in number and limited in power. Is it any wonder, then, that the city remained a place o f political activity and organization well into the nineteenth century? Yet, it is not enough to look simply at municipal government to understand the politics o f post-independence. Concurrent with the municipal revival, the same authorities created and supported provincial institutions and government. In the 1780s, the Bourbons consolidated several municipal districts into intendancies under one governor. In the Constitutional Period, the creation o f provincial deputations, whose deputies were elected by the principal municipal districts, attempted to develop some form of provincial unity and cooperation. The establishment o f state and national congresses after independence replicated this trend. The contradictions inherent in the simultaneous sponsorship of city and provincial institutions lie at the root o f the independence-era political and military conflicts, and cannot be explained when only province-level processes are studied. Despite significant study of the role o f provincial strife in this period, there is a curious silence in scholarship regarding the role o f the city in post-independence politics. If recent works on subaltern communities have returned directly and indirectly to the
IS 10-1840. PhD thesis, Colegio de Mexico, 1994.
village or municipio to discover political unity and the basis of activism and organization, little attention has focused on the parallel municipal organizations of big cities. Perhaps the proliferation of provincial, state and national congresses in the constitutional governments of the early nineteenth century has masked the resurgence and extension of municipal government, and caused historians to sideline study of the city as a place of government and source of political power and identity. Certainly the turn away from political history in the 1970s and the stress on subaltern or disenfranchised populations in the 1980s and 1990s has marginalized the study of what was, until the early nineteenth century, an institution of elites.16 Regardless of the cause, when looking at the literature of independence, one would think that not just the power, but the institutions of city government, had vanished with the rejection of Spain. There are indications that this misconception is about to be permanently shattered. A recent Argentine study has finally turned to the source of the first sovereignties, the city councils, to understand the ways in which political power operated through municipal authority in the key years of independence in the viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. Although this work highlights the importance of the city as the basis for the state is highlighted, its reliance on published declarations authorities in the capital city, rather than on the records of a variety of city councils of a
1 6 See for example, the works of, Peter Guardino, Peasants, politics and the formation o f Mexico's National State: Mark Thumer. From Two Republics to One Divided; Florencia Mallon, Peasant and Nation: the making o f postcolonial Mexico and Peru (Berkeley: U. of California Press, 1995); and Terry Rugelcy, Yucatan's Maya Peasantry and the origins o f the Caste War (Austin: U. ofT exas Press, 1996).
10
variety of types, limits the exploration o f the practical ways by which cities operated in relation to each other and within provincial and then state and national governments.17 What is missing, however, is an analysis that integrates recent advances made in understanding political conflict in individual districts, or provinces, within a greater government, with an acknowledgment that focus on the institution that represents what different authors call municipal communities or towns, that is, the city council. This thesis takes that extra step. That is, it suggests that to plumb the centrifugal forces that spun one colony into many countries the observer must first understand the political place o f city government within the Spanish imperial system, from its implantation in the sixteenth century, through its crown-sponsored revival and extension during the Bourbon Reforms (1759-1788) and constitutional monarchy (1808-1814, 1820-1821). City government was not a static institution, serving different functions and groups at different moments, so the thesis has been organized into seven chronological chapters to mark the most important developments, from conquest to early national state formation. The first chapters, A Republic o f Cities (1524-1759) and City and Colonial State (1542-1760) provide the background for an analysis of the role of the city in independence-era government and political ideology with a discussion o f the origin, development and function o f municipal government in the Kingdom of Guatemala (Central America). Rather than presenting an institutional
1' The Argentine historian Jose Carlos Chiaramonte comes closest. In his book, Ciudades, provincias, Estados: Origenes de la Nacion Argentina (1800-1846) ([Buenos Aires]: Co. Editoria Espasa Calpe), Chiaramonte explores the role of the city in independence-era Argentina, paying particular attention to importance of municipal government to political ideas. His book is strangely silent, however, on the operation of city government outside the capital of Buenos Aires, on the practical relations between city
11
study of the Spanish city council (cabildo), this chapter explores the New World legacy of the Spanish political and legal philosophy that city living equated with civilization and city government meant good government for both Spanish and non-Spanish communities, each of which was considered a separate republic. The approach argues for the elimination o f the artificial distinction between local and imperial or royal government as such a distinction was not reflected in contemporary understanding. City government was more than a resented or limited local authority; in theory, law and practice, the status o f the city in the Spanish imperial political system was equivalent to that of imperial governors and the clergy. The Spanish city, or the republic as it was called, was the source o f civilization and political legitimacy, with residency (yecindad) within a city conferring political status within the broader Spanish realm. The network of Spanish cities established at conquest represented more than a dozen urban centers in a wild territory. The Spanish conquest cities and their multi-league hinterlands, over which they exercised judicial, administrative, and political authority, provided not just supplies and labor but the territorial foundations for the provinces and districts o f the colony, and later the independent states of Central America. The third and fourth chapters address the Bourbon City and Spanish State from 1760 to 1808, and find the political influence and dynamism o f city councils on the rise in Central America in an era o f political reorganization, despite universal grumbling of local and imperial officials about the citys waning influence. Analysis o f specific economic and territorial policies shows that rather than abandoning city government,
and state government, and on the role o f non-Spaniards in the expansion o f city government in the
12
the reforms o f Bourbon King Charles III attempted to increase the number of towns exercising political and fiscal authority. This reevaluation o f the purpose o f the Bourbon reforms challenges traditional interpretations o f a centralizing policy and argues instead for an attempt at a uniform decentralization o f political authority that kept power divided between imperially-appointed governors and local authorities. Since this policy evolved simultaneously with a move to consolidate certain territorial jurisdictions, contradictions led to challenges. From the challenges posed at a municipal level, I argue for the growth o f a city-based regionalism that reinforced tensions between new and old town councils forced to co-exist within a single province. This regionalism would have a determinant impact in the independence era. Addressing dramatic political changes underway in the aftermath of Napoleons invasion o f Spain in 1808, the fifth chapter, From Cabildo to Ayuntamiento Constitutional: City and State On the Cusp o f Independence (1808-1821), considers how the establishment o f fully elective town councils (aynntamientos constitutionals ) under the Constitution o f 1812 irrevocably altered the foundations o f city and state government in the Spanish world. It shows how the democratization o f city council, and the first rejection o f the two republics (one Spanish, one Indian), led to increased popular participation in local government and increased expectation o f political opportunity by the regions mixed classes, particularly those of partially African descent. The tensions that emerged between Indian and casta communities that developed in this period due to the need to compete for places in formerly one-ethnicity
Spanish Constitutional period.
13
city councils would serve as a disruptive force after independence. Yet, once again, government reforms meant not just strengthened and expanded municipal institutions but attempts to forge provincial government through an entirely new political institution the provincial deputation. The success and failure o f the provincial deputation as a source o f alternate legitimate local power is explored. Chapter 6, Anarchic Dogma, Natural Liberty, New Socieities: The Central American Municipality at Independence, 1821-1823, demonstrates the results o f the strengthening of city government in communities o f all types and sizes in the two years following Central American independence. From individual declarations o f independence made by the principal cities o f the isthmus in the fall o f 1821 (each with its own conditions) to a referendum o f over 175 city councils on whether to join the Mexican Empire o f Agustin Itiirbide, the independence o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala from Spain was a purely municipal affair. After exploring the implications o f placing the decisions about the isthmus future in the hands o f the growing number o f city councils, this chapter explores in depth one instance o f the type o f provincial rivalry which would continue to plague the states of Central America after independence. It follows the rivalry between the cities o f Tegucigalpa and Comayagua to head the province o f Honduras, and the intricate web o f relations and alliances between principal cities and the small towns o f the countryside through which the rivalry operated. The final chapter, City, State and Nation in Central America, 1825-1850, demonstrates the results o f the municipal heritage in independent Central America. The tensions between city and province spilled over into the era o f city and state, and
14
fostered instability and fragmentation, but also contributed to the eventual consolidation of the states o f Central America. First, the chapter explores the initial attempts o f the constituent congress o f the Central American federation to evolve a political ideology that would move sovereignty from the cities to the state. Then, it shows the tensions that arose between this philosophy and the extension by Central American legislators of the traditional political system that delegated most implementation o f government responsibilities from conducting censuses to collecting taxes to military recruitment to democratically elected city councils o f each state. Finally, by distinguishing the political behavior of the principal cities divided in independence as they were in the years leading up to it and the smaller cities, the thesis concludes that the states o f Central America survived despite the disputes o f the ciudades and in large part by the determination o f the villages, or pueblos, to ensure the existence o f some central authority capable of mediating in their most difficult disputes. The behavior o f the smaller towns, seeking stability, is contrasted with the bitter and heedless rivalries o f the bigger cities that promoted the civil wars that beset the isthmus from the 1820s through the 1840s. Since the city councils acted in response to the decisions o f their members, each chapter also considers briefly the men o f the city councils o f three Central American citiesthe colonial capital, Guatemala City; the port town o f Sonsonate; and the mining center of Tegucigalpa. Each o f these cities governed an extensive district and their members, in all periods, came from the best families each community could proffer. If the families changed with the different opportunities o f the different periods, and
15
different methods o f selection city councilors (sale o f office, limited election, general election), the political careers o f the men involved did not. In each and every generation, city councilors combined these duties with work as royal officials in the colonial period, government officials after independence, and military service in both periods. The men o f the last colonial and first independent city councils became some of the isthmus finest statesmen. The discussion of the political careers o f municipal members addresses the permanent role o f big city governments as the training ground for state and national politicians. By taking the city as our unit of analysis and studying it in the context o f the states or provinces it made up in a time o f political change, this project moves to clarify the source of the anarchical or separatist tendencies o f this period beyond vague, imprecise and contradictory descriptions of regionalism or provincialism that are currently used. For different authors, region described a province or county, an important town and its satellites, or an area with pretensions to statehood which combined several colonial administrative divisions.18 Provincialism applied both to towns fighting for position in a provincial hierarchy or to a province disputing its sovereignty with the colonial capital. Even scholars developing new theoretical models to study the local in national politics1 9 have not agreed on the identification or definitionof a legitimate geopolitical site from which to study the evident unrest of
1 8 Barman, Brazil: The Forging o f a Nation; Momer, Region and State- Guardino, Peasants, politics and the formation o f Mexico's National State. 1 9 Mallon, Peasant and Nation ; Joseph and Nugent, eds., Everyday form s o f state formation: Aldo LauriaSantiago, Polity without a National State: State Formation, Sovereignty, and the Indian Peasantry of El Salvador during the Early Nineteenth Century. MS, 1995; Xiomara Avendaho Rojas, Las Caractcristicas
16
the period. For example, some study the mechanism o f change in one particular town over time, others the meaning of voting in two new states.20 Although assigning multiple meanings to a concept o f region is not necessarily a contradictory practice, it should at least be a conscious one. Provinces were made up o f municipal districts. Regions, whatever their larger structure, also broke down into municipal districts. Study o f the behavior o f these municipal districts, in relation to their local governors, state authorities and imperial or national institutions, provides a way to theorize the divisive behavior o f many of them in a way that can be compared across regions and across nation-states. For, at least through independence, all o f Spains American colonies experienced the municipal revival pushed by the Bourbons and the Spanish Cortes. In their response to this municipal strength after independence, we can begin to discover why the dissolution favored by the advance o f local and regional projects within a larger polity proved overwhelming in Central America, Gran Colombia and the River Plate (Argentina) but not in Mexico. Using the city as a unit of analysis, we can also begin to bridge some o f the gaps in the current historiography of Latin American nation-state formation. Instead o f focusing on social groupsprovincial elites, indigenous peasants, mestizo laborers or artisanswe can begin to understand the relationships among and between urban merchants, rural landowners, small farmers and laborers o f varying ethnic backgrounds through the organization which each group fought to control and uniformly used to
de la Ciudadania en Centroamerica durante el siglo XIX: Estudio de los distritos electorates de Quezaltenango y Granada, Revista de Historia , 5-6 (1995): 20-29. :o See note 19: for the former point, Lauria-Santiago and Mallon; for the latter Avendano Rojas.
17
communicate requests, demands and responses to state and national governments and to each other: the city councils. Such an approach makes explicit what is implicit in many recent studies: cities are the lived, organized and structured imagined community the political community that is the direct descendant o f the republic.2 1 Term inology This dissertation tells the story o f a plethora o f cities and provinces, some o f which go through repeated name and alliance changes. Several maps have been included to help the reader locate places physically, but it is more difficult to find a linguistic thread that communicates the changing terminology of three hundred years of geographical nomenclature. The following paragraphs explain the choices made and conventions used to provide some unity or clarity to a complicated jumble of namechanging redistricted places. Some o f the conventions require an anachronistic use of names, but hopefully the reader will forgive the sacrifice o f absolute authenticity for understanding. Let us start with the basics. The dissertation deals with the territory included in the Kingdom o f Guatemala, a colony o f the Spanish empire that stretched from Chiapas to Costa Rica. At times, to avoid confusion between the kingdom and one of its provinces, Guatemala, I refer to the Kingdom o f Guatemala as Central America. This
21 City and town councils make repeated appearances in such works, both as representatives of their communities in larger struggles, and as the body to which local residents turn to in times of crisis. Terry Rugeley, for example, in his study o f Mayan participation in a caste war in the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico in 1S47 begins with a discussion of the municipal organization through which the Mayan communities operated. Florencia Mallons Peasant and Nation relies on the study o f two peasant communities, and repeatedly draws attention to communication between the communities and their provincial, state and national interlocutors by means of their municipal councils. Rugeley, Yucatan's Maya peasantry and the origins o f the Caste War, Chapter 1; and Mallon, Peasant and Nation.
18
term was not in use during the colonial period, and originated as an official name for the United Provinces o f Central America, later the Central American Federation, in 1824. For the colonial period, Central America should be understood to include what became the five states o f Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa as well as the territory that is now the Mexican state of Chiapas. Chiapas was an integral part of the Kingdom o f Guatemala until its independence, and the direct link between that colony and the Mexican port of Veracruz. The term does not, however, include either Panama or the Dominican Republic, sometimes included as part o f an economic Central American unit in the twentieth century. At the time under consideration, Panama was a province o f Colombia and the Caribbean island-state, the Domincan Republic, has never had direct political ties with Central America. The country of Belize, formerly an English colony to which the country o f Guatemala still lays claim, is not politically or economically considered by nineteenth-century or modern-day Central Americans as part o f their community. When referring to a new city or town, I will sometimes include the province to which it belonged in parentheses, to help the reader locate the place geographically. However, since the Kingdom o f Guatemala comprised as few as 15 and as many as 32 provinces in the colonial period, the reader may find it useful to consult the maps in the beginning to determine the actual political affiliation o f a particular place. The country now known as El Salvador was a province called San Salvador. The term El Salvador, which became the name of the independent state in 1824, is used here to distinguish the province from its capital, San Salvador. Eighteenth-century documents
19
sometimes refer to the territories we now know as the countries o f Honduras and Nicaragua as Comayagua and Leon, respectively, the names o f the capital cities o f the intendancies established in 1786. The country names are used in the text to refer to provinces, to prevent confusion between the cities and the more extensive jurisdictions. Most city names remain constant during the period under consideration. There is however, one notable exception. The current capital o f the country o f Guatemala is known as Guatemala Ciudad, or Guatemala City. The same city was also the capital o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala. From the conquest until an earthquake forced the relocation o f the kingdom capital, the city was located in the valley o f Panchoy and was called Santiago de los Caballeros de Guatemala (1524-1776). The abandoned Santiago repopulated over time, took the name Antigua Guatemala" and is called simply Antigua today. The new capital, with the relocated population and institutions o f the old capital, was located about 30 miles away in the Valley o f the Hermit, a.k.a Valley o f the Cows. The common name o f the refounded city was Nueva Guatemala or New Guatemala but its official title was Asuncion de Guatemala (1776-present). In this work, I generally refer to Guatemala City. If the events take place before 1776, the reader will know that the action occurred in Santiago/Antigua. If they take place after 1776, the reader may imagine the scenery o f Asuncion/Nueva Guatemala. As will become clear in the text o f the dissertation, the types o f provinces in which a city, town or village could be located changed under different administrations. In the early colonial period, there were alcaldias mayores, corregimientos, gobiernos, provincias, distritos, and partidos, each with a different type o f governor and of
20
different size. In general alcaldias mayores and corregimientos tended to be county sized districts with one principal Spanish city or Indian town in which a governor resided. Provincias and gobiemos were larger territories whose governor had, in addition to fiscal and political responsibilities, military and defense charges; they might include several important towns. However, the term provirtcia did not always have a fixed meaning. Finally, distritos and partidos were smaller sections o f a larger district, likely to represent a parish circuit. Ater independence, terminology o f the French revolution led to the division o f new states into departments ( departamentos ) and districts (distritos ). The distinctions between the types o f district are dealt with in more detail in the text, as different terms come to be used in the Kingdom o f Guatemala and its successor states.
21
Chapter 1 A Republic of Cities: the Kingdom of Guatemala, 1524-1760 Cities that are established and founded are the security and constancy of conquered kingdoms, and, more, their principal heads, for they are the center for establishing the primary armed forces and political government. . in them commerce, the principal nerve that keeps and nourishes monarchies, happily plays (juega). In the cities, the cult of God is resplendent with sumptuous and rich temples, and they are adorned not only with illustrious houses, important and renowned, but with venerable and respectable ecclesiastic and secular tribunals. Francisco Fuentes y Guzman, ca. 1680 Recordation Florida, Book 5, Chapter 4 Pedro de Alvarado sped with his army through the whole land like a bolt o f lighting subjecting most o f it by force of arms and the rest by fear, wrote one o f Guatemalas early historians, Dominican friar Antonio de Remesal (1616-1617), of the man who led the forces that brought much o f current-day Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras under Spanish control between 1523 and 1527. Alvarado was no less rapid in consolidation of his conquests. In July of 1524, when he arrived at the site the natives called Panchoy, he founded his first capital. First came the physical creation, building houses with the help o f Mexican troops and Guatemalan natives. This was not, however, sufficient, as Remesal noted, for Alvarado did not name the settlement nor [establish] more government (policia ) or form o f Republic than an army lodged in its tents and pavilions. A republic, for a sixteenth-century Spaniard, was a city, and it was not until a conquistador formally established his capital that he fulfilled his goal not just to discover but to settle (descubrir y poblar), and could legally allocate victorys spoils. Conquest without government was not a legitimate exercise. Soldiers camps
22
had to be replaced with official settlements and their officials, to legitimize and confirm battle results.1 Alvarado did not wait for very long before consolidating his political authority. On the Monday following the initial construction, July 25, 1524, he ordered his men into battle formation to the sounds o f fifes and drums, harquebuses and muskets. After hearing mass said by the armys chaplain, governor and men solemnly called on the apostle Santiago, bestowed his name on the new city, and dedicated their church to him. On the same day, Alvarado named the first mayors and aldermen, including a town constable, who served as Santiago's skeletal town council (cabildo ). Three days of celebration followed. Then, on the July 29, Alvarados soldiers completed the exercise of foundation, figuratively exchanging sword for ploughshare, and established residency in their new hometown by inscribing themselves as the original householders {vecinos) o f the community. In most other cities, incorporation was followed immediately with the tracing o f the city layout and allotment by the town council o f land and lots for houses and civic and ecclesiastic buildings. In many cases, the conquistador or council also assigned the labor of the conquered Indian populations to the new vecinos .2 In Santiago however, the site was only lent to Alvarados troops by
1Antonio de Remesal, Historia General de las Indias Occidentales y particular de la Gobemacion de Chiapay Guatemala, ed. Carmelo Saenz de Santa Maria, Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles, Vol. 175 (Madrid: Ediciones Atlas, 1964-1966), Book 1, Chapters 2 & 3, pp. 81-83. Translations are mine, unless otherwise noted. * See, for example, the 1536 foundation of the Villa de San Pedro del Puerto de Cavallos (San Pedro Sula) by Pedro de Alvarado, who, after trasar y asentar una villa....la poblo de los vezinos que hera/ ne<;esario. A los quales luego les repartio los yndios de la comarca. Demas desto, para mejor ftmdaiîon, poblamiento y sustentacion de la Villa y vezinos della, proveyo de mas de dozientos yndios de sus
23
the native residents o f an existing settlement, and the procedure o f land distribution was postponed for three years, until the city relocated to its first permanent home in a neighboring valley.3 The delay, however, emphasizes that for the Spanish o f the sixteenth century, legitimate government meant establishing cities, and that if the physical trappings o f such government could be postponed, the legal and political foundations could not. Central America, like the rest o f Spains conquered territories in the Old and New Worlds, would be first and foremost a network o f self-governing cities. The contemporary understanding o f the role o f the city is well captured by Guatemalan historian Francisco Fuentes y Guzman (1612-1696), descendant o f conquerors, city councilor and organizer o f the municipal archives o f Santiago, my Cabildo, and aspirant to a Crown appointment as Guatemalas official historian. Fuentes y Guzman wrote that [cjities that are established and founded are the security and constancy of conquered kingdoms, and, more, their principal heads, for they are the center for establishing the primary armed forces and political governm ent...; in them commerce, the principal nerve that keeps and nourishes monarchies, happily plays. In the cities, the cult o f God is resplendent with sumptuous and rich temples, and they are adorned not only with illustrious houses, important and renowned, but with venerable and respectable ecclesiastic and secular tribunals.4
esclavos a hazer las labrantas para senbrar mayz. Relacion hecha por el Cabildo de Gracias a Dios sobre lo sucedido en la provincia de Higueras y Honduras..., 21 de diciembre de 1536 in AGI Guatemala 44. Printed in Hector M. Leyva, ed., Documentos Coloniales de Honduras (Tegucigalpa: Centro de Publicaciones Obispado de Choluteca, 1991), pp. 1-7. 3 Remesal, Historia General, p. 83. 4 Francisco Antonio de Fuentes y Guzman, Recordacion Florida, in Fuentes y Guzman, Obras Historicas de Francisco Antonio de Fuentes y Guzman, ed. Carmelo Saenz de Santa Maria, Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles, Vol. 230, (Madrid, Ediciones Atlas, 1969-1972), Book 5, Chapter 4, p. 159.
24
Civil, military and ecclesiastic government, as well as commerce, all operated from a municipal base. A city, town or village with its town council (concejo or cabildo), was, in the language o f the times, a republic (republica ) and had the requisite legislative, executive and judicial attributes to govern land and people.5 Historians of early modem Spain differ on whether the republican tradition derived directly from Roman institutions or from the processes of the medieval reconquest during which the kings o f Spain granted extensive jurisdictions, rights and privileges to the settlers who repopulated territories conquered from the Muslims. In the New World, as had happened in each region and each phase of the reconquest, the political system created was municipal, establishing autonomous Christian city-states responsible directly to the monarch and with the responsibility o f representing their community in the Spanish Cortes.6 Each city had its own royal charter and regulations, so there was no standardized body o f law relating to city government.7
5 Juan de Solorzano (1575-1655) in his Politica Indiana, Title 4, Book 5, Chapter 1, referred to the cities, villas and places (lugares) o f Spaniards as Republicas or poblaciones. The term was in Central America from the moment of foundation of Santiago. It is interesting to note, however, that in medieval Spain in the privileges and fueros granted by the crown to reconquista towns, the word republic was not used. See for example, the 1847 collection of numeros royal grants from 900 to 1250, Tomas Munoz y Torrero, ed., Coleccion de Fueros Municipales y Cartas Pueblas de las (sic) reinos de Castilla, Leon, Corona de Aragon v Navarra. (Valladolid: Lex Nova, 1977). However, Law 1, Title, 2, Book 7 o f the Novisima Recopilacion de las Leyes de Espana (Madrid: [s.n.], 1805-1829), refers to the Republica that the justicias, regidores y oficios o f the cities and towns are to govern (1480). 6 Helen Nader makes a persuasive case for this point of view in Liberty in Absolutist Spain: The Habsburg Sale o f Towns, 1516-1700 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), pp. 92-94. ' Munoz y Torrero, ed., Coleccion de Fueros Municipales y Cartas Pueblas, passim.
25
A Municipal Conquest Central America experienced its municipal conquest in the early sixteenth century, as one conquistador after another sailed, marched, fought, founded a city to consolidate victory and then repeated the exercise. Most o f the dozen or so principal towns and cities o f the isthmus that stretches from present-day Chiapas to Costa Rica trace their foundation to this twenty-year process of fight and found (1524-1542) undertaken by three groups o f Spanish military men. (See Table 1.1) Achieving far more than legal justification for the domination o f several Indian kingdoms, this extended municipal conquest established the bases for the regions territorial, economic and political organization and the capitals around which both colonial and independent Central America would organize. Pedro Alvarado, his brothers and their expedition conquered the Quiche and Kakchiquel kingdoms, and brought most o f what constitutes the modem republics o f Guatemala and El Salvador under Spanish control between 1524 and 1536. Pedrarias Davila (Pedro Arias de Avila) established his group of conquistadores in Nicaragua, while Francisco Montejo conquered the Yucatan peninsula and Chiapas. The territories of modern-day Honduras were the meeting point contested by all three leaders who founded several towns and cities on the Caribbean coast and in the mountain highlands o f the interior in attempts to lay claim to what would become a separate province. The conquistador capitals o f this periodSantiago (1524), Leon (1523), Ciudad Real (1528) and Comayagua (1540)became secular and ecclesiastical capitals of the provinces o f
26
Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chiapas and Comayagua (Honduras), which were joined by the Spanish crown into one politico-administrative district, the Kingdom o f Guatemala, in 1542.8 O f the major towns, only Costa Ricas Cartago (1565) owes its founding not to the initial conquest but to later exploration. The conquest gave Central America its capitals.
3 Located in an area without densely settled Indian populations or metal riches, it took a second wave of settlers to consolidate an early conquest with a durable city foundation. According to Juarros, Costa Rica was conquered in 1522, and one o f the Alvarados had extended his conquests into the land between the mouth of the San Juan River and the Escudo de Veraguas (Panama). However, Santiago de Cartago owed its title of city to settlement forty years later. Information on this and other foundings comes primarily from the work of nineteenth-century Guatemalan historian, Domingo Juarros, Compendio de la Historia del Reino de Guatemala. 1500-1800 (Guatemala: Editorial Piedra Santa, 1981), p. 315.
27
Table 1.1: Foundation of the Principal Spanish Towns and Cities o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala, 1523-1821________________________
Municipality
Guatemala City 1524-1776: Santiago 1776- : Asuncion Santiago (Antigua) Quczaltcnango Trinidad de Sonsonate Ciudad Real de Chiapa San Salvador
Status
Ciudad
Founded
1524 A {1776)
Political Position
Capital: Kingdom o f Guatemala (1549-1821); Location moved in 1776 after an earthquake; to 1753: 76 pueblos de indios Capital o f Alcaldia mayor, Sacatepcquez; 1799- town council Capital o f Corregimiento (1523-1821) ; 1 ayuntamiento: 1805 Capital o f Alcaldia Mayor (1552-1821) Port city (Acajutla); 21 pueblos in 8 parishes Capital o f Alcaldia Mayor (AM) (1529-1786); o f intendancy & partido (1787-); 56 pueblos, 20 parishes Capital o f Alcaldia Mayor (1542-1786), of Partido & Intendancy (1786-1821); 50 pueblos in 11 parishes (1526 rder/ 1528 founding) Capital o f Partido in AM S Salvador: 2 villas, 40 pueblos, valles & haciendas, in 7 parishes Capital o f Partido in AM S Salvador, 5 parishes, 1 villa and 12 pueblos, with haciendas and obrajes Capital o f Gobcmacion (15497-1787); from 1787, o f partido and intendcncy, o f 94 pueblos and other places in 25 parishes
Pueblo Villa Villa Ciudad Villa Ciudad Villa Ciudad Pueblo Villa Ciudad Villa Ciudad Pueblo Villa Villa Ciudad Real de Minas Villa Villa Exting Reest Ciudad Ciudad Ciudad Ciudad Reest Villa Villa Ciudad Reest
1523 ca. 1552 1528 M 1565 ca. 1526 1545 or 1543 A 1530 A pre-1599 1635 1658 1812 1540 1557 Mo 1526 1585 D 1530 A 1536 A -1580 1768 1524 1636 1807 1536 D 1523 D 1523 D ca. 1530 (1809) D 1534 A 1783 ca. 1565 1778
S Miguel de la Frontera San Vicente de Austria, o Lorenzana Valladolid o Coma vacua Xercs de la Frontera -Choluteca S Jorge de Olancho S Pedro Zula Tegucigalpa
Truxillo en Honduras Gracias a Dios Leon de Nicaragua Granada Nueva Segovia Rcalcjo Rivas Cartago
(San Jorge Olanchito) Cabildo extinguished by 1800; founded as S. Pedro Puerto Caballos Capital AM, then Partido, then AM (1580-1788; 1812-1821): villa, 6 lugares de ladinos, 17 pueblos de indios, 13 minerales, valles & haciendas, 10 parishes Port; Founded on orders by Cortes; abandoned after Dutch pirate attack, 1643; rcpopulated 1789, w families fm Galicia & Canaries Capital, Gbno o f Honduras (1536-1542); Aud. de Ios Confines (1542-1549) Capital o f Gobiemo (-1786), partido and Intendancy (17871821), 2 villas, 6 pueblos, many valles and haciendas Capital de Partido, Gbno. o f Nicaragua: de 1 villa & 17 pueblos Capital de Partido in Gbno. o f Nicaragua: 1 villa and 5 pueblos Capital o f Partido, villa o f mulatto carpintcrs; port Title o f villa Capital o f Gobcmacion (1565?-1821), o f 3 villas , 10 pueblos
Monasteries: F = Franciscan, D = Domincan, M = Mercedarian, SJDD = San Juan de Dios Conquistadores: A-AIvarado, M-Mazariegos, Mo-Montejo, Ch- Chaves, D- Davila, de la Cueva (or lieutenants) Sources: Juarros, Compendio, passim. Taplin, Middle American Governors, passim ; Bemabe Fernandez Hernandez, El Reino de Guatemala durante el gobiemo de Antonio Gonzalez Saravia, 18011811, passim. Truxillo (1789): Gonzalez, AGI Guatemala 453. Rivas title, Ricardo Magdaleno, Titulos de Indias , p. 283. Choluteca: www.hondudata.com/enciclopcdia/encicIoncw/honduras/mapas/municipios/ChoIutcca/MunidcchoIuteca.htm
28
Not only the capitals came from the process o f fight and found, but also the provincial organization o f the Kingdom developed from the satellite towns (villas) founded by the conquistadors. These satellite towns were founded by small groups of settlers dispatched from the first cities to ensure the submission o f indigenous groups, whose tendency to rebel threatened the early Spanish settlements, and to defend a territorys far reaches from the predations o f rival groups o f conquistadors. These towns became capitals (cabeceras) o f smaller districts alcaldias mayores and partidos within the larger areas controlled by each conquistador, and, later Crownappointed Spanish governors and bishops. For example, the Alvarado contingent, responding to Indian uprisings in the Cuscatlan district, established the city o f San Salvador (1526) and marked an outer boundary to its jurisdiction with the founding of the town o f San Miguel (1530). These two towns anchored what would become the province, and later intendancy of San Salvador, along with the town o f San Vicente, founded in 1658 at a mid-way point between San Salvador and Guatemala City.9 Similarly, Pedrarias Davila, established established the jurisdiction o f what would become the province, and later intendancy of Nicaragua in his network to the south where he and his allies had participated in the foundations o f Leon (1523), Granada (1523) and Nueva Segovia (ca. 1530).
9 Fifty Spanish families founded a village in 1635, and convinced the crown to grant it an ayuntamiento and villa status in 1658 with a 1600 peso donation to the crown. Juarros, Compendio , p. 269. For a thorough treatment of indigo production and commerce, see Robert S. Smith, Produccion y comercio de anil en la Guatemala colonial, in Luis Rene Caceres, ed., Lecturas de Historia de Centroamerica ([San Jose, CR]: Banco Centroamericano de Integracion Economica, 1989), pp. 141-175.
29
As is clear from Maps 1 through 6, Central America's municipal conquest permanently shaped territorial organization of the isthmus, with provinces and districts forming around the principle Spanish settlements. It also produced economic development that favored the western half o f the isthmus. For the mountain highlands were not only where most Spanish cities flourished, but also were where the Indian peoples lived. These highland districts became centers for internal trade o f the agricultural and industrial products of the isthmus. Lowland towns on the Caribbean shore were limited to ports and military outposts meant to trade with Spain and deter British incursions. Although also founded at the time o f conquest, they later often became depopulated because of piracy and a difficult climate. Entrepots for trade and without a significant or permanent Spanish population, they had little political or religious clout within the system. Most were in the north and favored the growth o f Santiago as commercial center: San Pedro Sula, (1536),10 Truxillo (1524-1646), Santo Tomas (1604) and Golfo Dulce (1674), and, much later, the fortress o f Omoa (1740). In the south, there was only the port o f San Juan, on the Caribbean coast o f Nicaragua; by the seventeenth century it was often controlled by British privateers.1 1
1 0 The 1536 act of incorporation of San Pedro de Puerto de Caballos by Pedro de Alvarado, along with the list of repartimientos of Indian villages has been printed in Mario Felipe Martinez Castillo, Apuntamientos para una historia colonial de Tegucigalpa y su alcaldia mayor (Tegucigalpa: Editorial Universitaria, 1982), pp. 91-96. 1 1 Juarros, Compendio, p. 36. It is likely that the Alvarados also sent some o f Guatemala's early vecinos to found Sonsonate in order to have a Pacific port with which to trade with Peru, in whose conquest the indefatigable Alvarado also took part. A fire in 1564 destroyed that citys act o f foundation. Santiago's vecinos had encomiendas of Indians in the Sonsonate district, suggesting long-standing connections. JuarTos, Compendio , p. 267. For a first-person account of a Dutch pirates predations in the Caribbean,
30
On the Pacific Coast, communication among the American territories led to development o f two ports that serviced the legal and illegal trade that exchanged indigo, sugar, cacao, tobacco and silver for wines from Peru and Asian goods imported from Mexico. Acajutla was a way station managed from the nearby town o f Sonsonate (1552). Realejo (1534) developed a shipbuilding industry in the sixteenth century, and served as the Pacific outlet for the Nicaraguan district, as it was only 4 leagues from provincial capital Leon.1 2 Together, these highland and lowland towns (or republics) filled in the conquered territory, set the general limits and affiliations o f the provinces o f the isthmus, and provided the republic o f cities that was the backbone o f the Spanish political and economic network in Central America. See, for examples, three seventeenth-century mapsone by Fuentes y Guzmanthat emphasize the locations o f city settlements, and a fourth, from 1657, that show the towns and cities in relation to their provinces. As was traditional with contemporary Spanish map-making, cartographers represented only key features on land rivers, mountains, and cities. A cluster o f houses represented towns or cities, with bishoprics distinguished by the addition o f a distinctive church building to the group. Yet, where Spanish maps were dotted with hundreds o f cities, towns and villages, only the dozen or so conquest towns o f Central America found their
see John Esquemeling, The Buccaneers o f America, First Publish'd in 1784 (Glorieta, NM: Rio Grande Press, 1992). u Juarros, Compendio, p. 21,
31
way onto the maps, while Indian villages, no matter how important, did not.13 If there were provincesand there were dozens, as we shall see below it was rare for them to be located at a point on the map; instead, province names floated above an area, fixed neither to a territory nor a series o f towns (see Figures 1-4). In a rare instance o f an eighteenth-century map distinguishing among the different districts o f the Kingdom of Guatemala, the city-based nature o f political territory is equally clear. In a map whose borders are too regular to reflect the reality o f the mountainous, uneven territories, one can see each province was named for the city whose seat was its capital (Figure 5). The representation, then, was clear: cities were not only the places where civilized people lived; they were the places that mattered politically. An immigrant or visitor was encouraged to head to one o f the limited number of Spanish communities to establish himself. They were the only places he could see ahead o f time on the map.
1 3 For examples o f maps o f sixteenth and seventeenth century Spain, see the Osher Map Collection at the University o f Southern Maine, which includes sixteenty-century maps by Girolamo Ruscelli and Hessel Gerritsz.
32
Figure 5: Audiencia de Guatemala, Eighteenth Century
Source: AGI, Mapas y Pianos, Guatemala 309 (Courtesy, Archivo General de Indias)
33
Networks and the Republic of Cities Some studies of the urbanization o f conquest have correctly identified the importance o f municipal organization as a key feature o f Spanish American society. However, some of the findings based on studies o f the larger districts o f Spanish America, notably the viceroyalties o f New Spain (Mexico) and Peru, do not hold up in the case o f Central America. Historian Lyle Me Alistair has argued that there were four principal characteristics o f the urbanization o f conquest. The first three were the haphazard and unstable nature of the earliest cities, which led to a significant number of peripatetic capitals; dispersal and isolation o f the centers o f population to places where labor supplies were available; and weak articulation o f urban networks due to the distances as well as natural barriers that separated Spanish towns and discouraged communication among them. Lastly, McAlistair argued that the Spanish cities looked outward to major administrative centers, where privileges were dispensed by imperial authorities, leading to location of towns to favor export and imports (i.e. on the Caribbean Coast) and closer contacts between these isolated cities and Spain, than between the cities themselves.14 In part because o f its fairly compact extension, compared to the extensive viceroyalties o f Mexico and Peru to the north and south, and in part because o f the terrain, Central Americas municipal development did not share these characteristics.
u Lyle McAlister, Spain and Portugal in the New World, 1492-1700 (Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 1984), pp. 150-151.
34
Some cities, like Santiago, did relocate in the initial years, but their foundation, as seen above, was anything but haphazard and unstable. Santiago moved once because its initial site was known to be temporary from the start, selected to make a political statement and to take advantage o f alliances with one group o f Guatemalan natives in order to establish a base from which to attack mutual enemies. Three years later, the battles won, Santiagos vecinos visited several different sites and voted, after extensive discussion, on the site on which to trace out and build their city. Fifteen years later, a devastating flood that killed the only woman governor o f the colony, prompted them to repeat the exercise. If the physical site o f Santiago changed, the government and vecinos did not, nor did the citys name.15 Further, each move reflected the suppleness o f the city as both political and physical body: the physical location could shift without undermining political organization. Even after two hundred years, the principle remained valid. After a 1773 earthquake led to a difficult and contested decision to abandon Santiago, the new city was considered a continuation o f the old. The city councils remove to a temporary home at the new site in 1776 that confirmed the successful establishment of Nueva Guatemala de la Asuncion (Guatemala City), just as
1 5 Alvarados choice had fallen on the fortress of Iximche, as he stated, because it was the center of all the country" with more and better arrangements to consolidate the conquest; it was also the capital of the Kaqchiquels, Alvarados ally against the Quiche Maya. In 1527, the permanent settlement of Santiago de los Caballeros was founded in the Kaqchiquel valley of Almolonga. After a flood in 1541, which killed Alvarados widow and interim governor Beatriz de la Cueva, the capital m oved to the site o f the present-day Antigua, Guatemala, its home for over two hundred years. Pedro de Alvarado to Heman Cortes, cited in AdriaanVan Oss, Catholic Colonialism: a parish history o f Guatemala, 1524-1821 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 10-11. For the discussions on moving the capital, see the town council acts o f 1527 in Carmelo Saenz de Santa Maria, ed, and Maria del Carmen Deola de Giron,
35
the foundation o f a council had provided legitimacy to the foundation o f Santiago. It took a full decade to build the physical plant o f the transferred city and convince residents, the bureaucracy and the church o f the former capital, called Antigua, to follow their government.1 6 Whether they moved or not, most o f these towns and cities became capitals o f provinces or districts. Several, like San Salvador, Chiapas, and Comayagua were rapidly promoted from villa to ciudad, an increase in status that reflected the increased value of their products and jurisdictions, and the astute decisions o f their founders to place them in economically and politically viable locations.17 Comayagua, for example, was not only near to mines discovered after its foundation and equidistant between Caribbean and Pacific coasts as well as centrally located between Guatemala and Nicaragua, but also had a climate better than several Honduran coastal towns where, Comayaguas cabildo wrote simply in 1555, many die.18 Some cities did become depopulated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when even the more productive cities experienced urban flight. However, this ruralization did not reflect poor planning on the part o f the conquistadors. Instead, it derived directly from an economic
paleography, Libro Viejo de la Fundacion de Guatemala (Guatemala: Academia de Geografla e Historia de Guatemala, 1991), pp. 12-20, or Remesal, Historia general , pp. 83-86. 1 0 For a detailed presentation o f the 1776 move of the capital and the tensions beween captain general and cabildo, see Pedro Perez Valenzuela. La nueva Guatemala de la Asuncion (Guatemala: Ministerio de Educacion Publica, 1934). Original documents, including a royal order o f 17 May 1776 expressing the king's displeasure with the cabildos resistance to the move, and the citys protestations of cooperation and loyalty of 9 October of the same year, can be found in AGI Guatemala 534. 1' Comayagua became a city in 1557 and Chiapas in 1565, per royal decree. San Salvador received its title from the king in either 1543 or 1545. Juarros cites two different dates in his Compendio pp. 21, 263. 1 8 Informe de Cabildo de Comayagua, afio de 1555 in Martinez Castillo, Apuntamientos, pp. 97-98.
36
crisis that essentially cut off overseas trade and indirectly from Spanish maritime weakness. Devastating pirate attacks along the Caribbean and even Pacific coasts sent the inhabitants o f Leon, Granada and other cities to live on their inland farms. However, when the economy revived in the eighteenth century, these same towns resumed their former status. These municipal conquest cities also proved sufficient to house and connect the Spanish residents o f the Hapsburg Kingdom of Guatemala for two hundred years: only one new Spanish town incorporated in the seventeenth century.1 9 Compared to modem times the Spanish cities of Central America were isolated and separate. Even with a regular mail system established in the 1790s, it still took four months for messages to travel from the capital to Costa Rica and back with the official mail. However, most of the cities sent and received mail to other cities less than 100 leagues distant, with a turnaround time that, including a break to send cordilleras through the dependent villages and to compose answers, was 30 days or less.20 The fastest turnaround for correspondence with Spain was close to ten times longer.2 1
1 9 For a discussion of the process o f ruralization in the Kingdom o f Guatemala see Fonseca, Economia y Sociedad en Centroamerica (1540-1680), in Julio Pinto Soria, ed., Historia General de Centroamerica , v. 2. El Regimen Colonial (1524-1570), (Madrid: FLACSO, 1993), pp. 140-142. Fonseca argues that in the case of Nicaraguan cities Leon and Granada, it was not the general crisis but specific local factors that precipitated the abandonment o f urban living. Leon changed sites after a 1610 earthquake, and many vecinos didn't build houses in the new provincial capital. Granada, on the other hand, had only 39 of 200 %-ecinos in residence 1679 because pirate attacks made rural living a more prudent choice. 20 For a complete list o f distances from the capital to the cities and cabecera.' de partido o f the Kingdom of Guatemala in 1793, see AGCA A3.8, A1.25 Leg. 2603, Exp. 21389, f 4. O f the 43 places listed, only 6 were further than 200 leagues, 10 between 100 and 150 leagues distant. Fully half were less than 100 leagues from the capital, and 9 were under 50 leagues. 2 1 Although correspondence could reach Spain in two months, it more often took four to six months for government correspondence to reach its destination in the Peninsula. Prepared after deliberation and
37
From Capital (Guatemala) To: San Salvador y sus partidos San Miguel Comaiagua y sus partidos Costa Rica Totonicapan Chimaltenango Solola Peten Verapaz Chiquimula Golfo (Dulce) y Omoa Sonsonate Leon y su Provincia Quezaltenango Mazatenango Ciudad Real Zacatepeques
Table 1.2: Kingdom of Guatemala, Frequency of Mails, 179422 Receive Back After Distance Trip Takes # Days (in leagues) # Days 15 60 30 97 23 50 30 117 40 60 400 (Cartago) 60 15 30 21 10 11 20 15 25 60 60 165 15 30 147 (Coban) 34 40 40 34 81; 101 V S 40 24 59 30 23 50 183 10 43 20 10 61 20 40 140 60 8 9 (Antigua) 15
Without minimizing the discomforts and dangers o f isthmian travel,23 it seems likely that from the sixteenth century, most Spanish towns and cities could reach the capital, or its most important local trading partner, in a few days journey or less.24 So, while the
authorization, most responses did not arrive in the Kingdom o f Guatemala before at least a year had passed. For this reason, appeals o f local decisions often took two to three years to resolve. " AGCA A3.8/A1.25 Leg. 2603, Exp. 21389, f 4, 12. Estado o razon...., Pedro Gomez de la Pena, 1793, & Emplazamientos y recepciones de Prueba de todas las provincias del reino..., Nueva Guatemala, 23 April 1794, Juan Hurtado. 23 Adriaan Van Oss, The Autarkic Colonial Cities o f Central America in eds. Robert J. Ross and Gerard J. Telkamp, Colonial Cities: essays on urbanism in a colonial context (Boston: M Nijoff, 1985), quantified archbishop Cortes y Larraz complaints o f his visit to the diocese o f Guatemala and San Salvador in the 1760s. O f 143 different overland trajectories, more than half (73) included violent climbs or descents: 65 mentioned rivers crossed by wading, canoe, sitting on a chair carried by wading Indians, or slung in a sack shot across the river. Thirty-nine routes suffered loose rocks or landslides; in another 34, either marshes or heavy brush and woods impeded progress. The bishop visited densely populated areas nearest the capital; it is hard to imagine the rest o f the provinces boasted better conditions. 2 -1 In an 1816 complaint o f the mayors of Sonsonate about restrictions placed on their jursdiction by the alcalde mayor, Mariano Bujons, it took less than a week for the complaint to travel to the Kingdom capital, three weeks for the complaint to be resolved, and eight days for the decision to reach Sonsonate.
38
urban centers o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala fostered communication and trade with Spain, a developed internal communications network had greater importance. The cities o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala depended on the existence o f nested networks: each capital o f a partido or province served as local market and center o f departmental trade that connected it to its neighbors and the capital. Distance, natural barriers, and competition did not in the case o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala lead to external orientation, isolation and instability, or an inordinate population concentration in a few administrative centers long after Spanish domination o f the region ended.25 Most o f the isthmus Atlantic and Pacific ports were in decay or abandoned in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, due to a deadly climate, pirate raids and a crisis in Spanish shipping. The towns in the densely populated Indian highlands Santiago, San Salvador, Tegucigalpa, Ciudad Realgrew and flourished while the coastal cities o f Gracias a Dios, Truxillo, Granada and Realejo faltered. As various authors show, the commerce o f the Kingdom of Guatemala for much o f this period was primarily regional,
Alcaldes Ordinarios, Sonsonate, to Captain General, 20 January 1816; Antonio Arroyave to Alcaldes Ordinarios o f Sonsonate, Guatemala, 24 January 1816 and 14 February 1816. AMS, Caja 1810-21/3, Sobre que el Ale. Mr. Intento quartar la Jurisdiccion q. siempre han exercido los Alcaldes Ordin.s de este N.A. de 4 leguas en contomo... Chiapas mail was likely slow because of the need to coordinate with Oaxaca, whence the kingdom received most mail from the Metropolis, Islands, y Mexican Kingdom." Yet, even Oaxaca could be reached by a courtier in a thirteen-day journey that included stops in six towns to pick up and deliver mail along the way. In 1805, Captain General Antonio Gonzalez M. ordered a second mail run each month. Mail took 13 days to reach Oaxaca from Guatemala, stopping in Totonicapan, Quezaltenango, Comitan, Ciudad, Real, Tuxtla, and Texuantepec. AGCA A1 Leg. 6091, Exp. 55306, f 74. Cuademo de Providencias, Despachos, Ordenes y Comunicaciones, 30 April 1805 ' 5 Lyle McAlaistair, Spain and Portugal in the New World, p. 151. As part o f a court case against Guatemala City in 1803, syndic Sebastian Melon compiled his 37 policy papers into a testimonial. These papers provide insight both into the role o f the syndic as city lawyer and conscience, the abuses of power that could exist in a council, and the relations between the Guatemala council, captain general and audiencia. AHN Consejos 20983, Pieza 20.
39
and was conducted between and among the principal urban centers o f the isthmus and their American neighbors.26 More compact than most o f Spains American territories, the Kingdom o f Guatemala had two principal trading circuits: the northern trade sector, which stretched from Tegucigalpa through San Salvador and Chiapas to Oaxaca, and Veracruz in New Spain, and the southern group that included part o f Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Caribbean and Peruvian trade and contraband (see Figures 6 and 7). Despite production of export crops in Soconusco, Costa Rica, and the Izalco region o f Salvador (cacao) and San Salvador and San Miguel (indigo), the Kingdoms economy was reasonably selfsufficient. The valley o f Guatemala specialized in wheat and sugarcane; the city produced artisanal goods. The rest o f the provinces produced for internal consumption and surplus trade with nearby Mexican and Peruvian provinces: grains, cattle, cotton and woven fabrics. For most o f the Spanish period, Tegucigalpa produced little more silver than that necessary to support this economy.27 A limited contraband trade with the British (cheap textiles), Peru (wine) and Mexico (various goods) supplemented what could not be produced locally or profitably traded with Spain. Such an internal economy required regular communication and cooperation in the organization o f the ferias and
26 See Appendix G for a copy o f a region-by-region analysis of the principal products o f the Kingdom of Guatemala, attributed to Spanish merchant Juan de Zavala (1753-1800). For more detailed discussion of the networks o f trade, see, Antonio Larrazabal, Apuntamientos sobre la agricultura y comercio del Reyno de Guatemala (Guatemala: M. Arevalo, 1811), also in Melendez, Textos Fundamentales, pp. 70-82. 27 For discussion o f the 17th century economy of the Kingdom o f Guatemala and its economic crisis, see Murdo Macleod, Historia socio-economica de la America Central espanola, 1520-1720 (Guatemala: Editorial Piedra Santa, 1990), and Elizabeth Fonseca Corrales, Economia y Sociedad... in Julio Pinto
40
setting o f market days so that it could function, more than it demanded frequent overseas contact. The internal economy developed in the Kingdom o f Guatemala favored regionalization that centered on micro-economies, not on rejection o f local ties for commerce.
Soria, ed., Historia General de Centroamerica. v. 2, El Regimen Colonial (1524-1570) (Madrid:

FLACSO, 1993), pp. 137-149.
41
Figure 6: Commercial Trade Routes o f Colonial Central America
< u $
i
vp y
k\ i ^
if!!
t
s
*
.% i
'* ;j jn
\,/
n *
. I
' r i
Source: Julio Pinto Soria, ed., Historia General de Centroamerica, v. 2, El Regimen Colonial (1524-1570) (Madrid: FLACSO, 1993). Figure 2.6.
42
Figure 7: Principal Agricultural Products, Kingdom o f Guatemala
c\j
<\J
c\j
m
ro
in
ro ^ m
id
Source: Julio Pinto Soria, ed., Historia General de Centroamerica, v. 2, El Regimen Colonial (1524-1570) (Madrid: FLACSO, 1993), Figure 4.2.
43
Certainly, the Kingdom o f Guatemala had an administrative center, the capital Santiago, with an almost exclusive stranglehold on the export economy that increased during the eighteenth century, despite some Bourbon efforts to strengthen provincial autonomy. Guatemalas elites had educational advantages over the rest o f the audiencia , because the sole university was in their city, and more access to interim governorships and other appointments in the captain generals gift. However, since most privileges and immunities were dispensed directly by the monarch, this administrative importance did not have the same weight as it might have had the economy, in fact, focused primarily on the imports and exports whose official trade the capitals merchants controlled, or had there not been important contraband carried out on both coasts. There was inequality: capital Santiago had more than its fair share of human, political and economic resources. But spread throughout the isthmus were other regional centers, with their own trade and power networks, anxious to skim some of that power and profit for themselves. City Space The above discussion explains the municipal organization that underlay all political and territorial organization that followed the conquest o f Central America. However, there is an important silence regarding the extensive territory that each city controlled. A modem dweller o f high-rises associates the idea of a city with a built-up, densely populated center and city limits with the division between urban sprawl and the first signs o f some sort o f open space. The maps above would tend to support a mental image
44
of a city reduced to an urban center. To a large extent, historians have applied these same criteria to the study o f colonial Spanish American cities, focusing on the urban side of city life and city government.28 However, in practice, the Spanish city was an urban center, or casco, with a significant hinterland (termino) that stretched for many leagues and included numerous pockets o f human settlement. Such settlements ranged from structured Indian villages, or pueblos, to ranches (haciendas), mines (minas), and aldeas, lugares and valles (other forms o f rural Spanish settlement) in which Indian, Spanish, mulatto and mestizo populations lived unregulated by official administration. The republic of cities was more than just a series o f connected urban centers; it was a series o f often-abutting provinces. It was traditional for a republica to include large swathes o f land, to ensure that every last square inch of countryside pertained to a legitimate community. According to Castilian law, a citys limits were defined in relation with those o f its neighbors, and a new citys land claims were not to infringe on those o f its nearest neighbor.29 In the Central American case, there were no pre-existing Spanish towns prior to the advent o f the conquistadors of the 1520s, so initial terminos o f the conquest cities and towns were vast jurisdictions coterminous with the provinces for which the cities later served as capitals, or cabeceras. Although in some cases further settlement led to reduction o f the initial boundaries, throughout the colonial period, Central Americas conquest
:s For more on the responsibilities and activities of city government, see Chapter 2.
45
municipalities controlled significant territories. Pedro de Alvarado, for example, stated that Santiago was the termino of the province o f Guatemala; this city originally governed over 58 leagues of mountain and coastal territory.30 In 1573, the Crown succeeded in reducing its reach to a still-important area of 11 leagues, yet even this more restricted termino still included seventy-six pueblos de Indios ? x
29 Novisima Recopilacion de las leyes de Espana: dividida en XII libros. See Helen Naders Liberty in Absolutist Spain , Chapter 1, The Constitution of Land and Council, for a lucid introduction to the process o f town incorporation in sixteenth-century Castile. 0 In the act o f foundation, Alvarado states, asiento y pueblo en este sitio la ciudad de Santiago, el cual dicho sitio es termino de la provincia de Guatemala. Act o f 22 November 1527. Libro Viejo, p. 39. jl Emesto Chinchilla Aguilar, El Ayuntamiento colonial de la Ciudad de Guatemala (Guatemala: Editorial Universitaria, 1961), p. 30, for 58 leagues. Guatemala Citys eleven league jurisdiction was confirmed by the crown in a royal cedula o f 1573, and reconfirmed against audiencia appeals in 1604 and 1607. In 1680, this jurisdiction was codified into the Recopilacion de Leyes de Indias, as Law 64, Title 2, Book 3 as suiting public utility (por convenir a la utilidad publica). Impreso, GC, [1760s?], AGI 533.
46
Figure 8: Plan of New Guatemala City, 1776
Source: AGI, Mapas y Pianos, Guatemala 220 (Courtesy, Archivo General de Indias).
47
If Santiago's initial jurisdiction was unusually extensive, it was far from the only Central American city with an outrageous territorial footprint. San Salvador, capital o f the alcaldia mayor o f San Salvador, governed a 30-league valley, as did Granada o f Nicaragua. San Miguel, in Salvador, and Tegucigalpa, in Honduras, each had 40-league jurisdictions.32 San Vicentes authority over sixteen leagues in San Salvador seems paltry until compared with the exceptional fifteen league termino granted to Mexico City in 1539 as capital o f the entire viceroyalty o f New Spain.33 Each of these enormous jurisdictions included numerous Indian and, later, mestizo, ladino, pardo and mulato villages and settlements, as well as the haciendas, sugar mills, indigo workshops, and mines on which the population laboredand from which the urban Spanish elite derived much of their income.34 In brief, the size o f the size o f each citys hinterland made the colonial Spanish city more o f a province than a simple urban center. Laws subsequent to the conquest that established municipal jurisdiction at a reasonably manageable 4 square leagues35 were rarely invoked in early colonial Central America, except in cases when the incorporation o f new Spanish towns or cities reflected
32 AGI Guatemala 572, Consulta del ayuntamiento de Granada, 24 April 1785. Real Cedula de 3 September 1783. Law 3, Title 8, Book 4, Recopilacion, (RC 5 October 1539). 4 The most complete information on the inhabitants o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala and their economic status is to be found in the visitas made by bishops and archbishops to their districts. O f these, the account prepared by Archbishop Pedro Cortes y Larraz in the 1760s on the jurisdictions o f Guatemala and El Salvador is by far the most detailed. Pedro Cortes y Larraz, Descripcion geografico-moral de la Didcesis de Goathemala (Guatemala: Sociedad de Geografia e Historia de Guatemala, 1958). 35 Law 6, Book 4, Title 5 (Felipe II (1527-1598), Ordenanza 88, 89) o f the Recopilacion authorized a territory of four square leagues or 4 leagues in length to a new Villa de Espaholes that met the minimum requirements: 30 vecinos, or households, a priest, and a church. The four leagues had to be at least five leagues from any extant City, Villa or Settlement (Lugar) o f Spaniards, and not harm Indian villages.
48
the process o f breakaway settlements typical o f reconquista and Habsburg Spain.36 Until the 1750s, Spanish authorities made no concerted effort to reduce the areas under municipal control. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Crown favored municipal government o f extensive territories, on the grounds that it improved government in the countryside. For example, in the seventeenth century, the Crown abolished a district in Nicaragua, and ordered the governor to name one o f the mayors o f the city o f Leon to govern the three pueblos it had included. The royal order of September 1673 stated that in this way the Indian residents would receive the same good government and lack o f financial hardship as the Indian towns under the jurisdiction o f Santiago.37 As late as 1753, Ferdinand VI confirmed the city o f San Salvador as governor ( corregidor) of its 30-league valley.38 On the eve o f the Intendancy Reforms o f 1786, most Central American ciudades and villas in fact continued to administer territories the size o f small- and medium-sized provinces.
j6 One case on record is that of the town o f Sonsonate. Sonsonate's mayors fought in vain for much of the 16th century to receive the right to 4 leagues o f jurisdiction, refused because a Santiago resident had an encomienda of Indians in the district. Because Santiagos special privileges included extension o f the mayors privileges to any labor-supplying Indian town (pueblo encomendado), Sonsonate could not even administer the 4 leagues and 22 villages o f their jurisdiction. Fuentes y Guzman, Recordacion Florida , Book 10, Chapter 11, Volume 259, p. 177. 3 AGI Escribania 339b. Queen to Fernando Franco de Escobedo, President of the Audiencia of Guatemala, Madrid, 3 September 1673. The royal cedula also ordered the governor o f Nicaragua to relocate from Leon to Granada, where he could better organize the provinces defense, and showed that the practice o f corTegidores of forced sale o f goods was endemic even in this period. At the same time as the district o f Sutiaba was extinguished, so was that o f Monimbo, within 3 leagues o f the city of Granada. The Indian towns o f this jurisdiction would come under the direct jurisdiction of the Governor, who was forbidden to name a lieutenant to fulfill this function. j8 A 1753 royal order reconfirmed that the city, not the alcalde mayor, was responsible for justice in this area. AGCA A 1.23 Legajo 61, Expediente 1528, Real Cedula 1 December 1753.
49
As might be expected, what Bourbon reformers later called monstrous jurisdiction led to significant overlap of authority when, after 1542, the town councils shared territorial jurisdiction with Spanish governors. As we shall see in the discussion o f the role o f city government within the imperial political system, our understanding o f the position o f the city council needs to be reexamined in light o f the contemporary conceptualization o f its role as equivalent to that o f imperial governors. Many o f the acrimonious disputes that marked city relations with governors throughout the colonial period derived from the two institutions competing authority to assign Indian labor and influence the purchase o f their produce. City Residents A city was more than just its territory, however. It was also the locus o f civilization. That political life was first and foremost organized in the city was taken for granted in the society o f early modem Castile. As Helen Nader observed, civil status, legal rights and political power derived from citizenship (vecindad) in a municipality. Civil law (derecho civil) covered all that pertained to the city.39 Urban residence was the source o f civil and political status and the countryside was a place without civilization. The city as place o f government and civilization was so deeply ingrained in Spanish culture that the term villano , one who lived in the countryside, had his nature defined by a
39 Sebastian de Covarrubias Horozco, Tesoro de la lengva castellana, o espanola (Madrid.Luis Sanchez, Impresor del Rey, 1611), under Ciudad,Civil todo lo que pertenece al derecho de ciudad.
50
seventeenth-century bibliographer as discourteous and rude.40 To understand clearly the connotation o f villano , we have only to recall that this word is the direct ancestor o f our English word villain. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the Spanish conquest of the Americas in the sixteenth century meant the transfer of the republic and the municipal mindset to the new territories, adapted to meet the specific challenges o f the situation.
If
the sheer scope of municipal jurisdictions was something unique to the New
World, so too was the need to govern a diverse and diversifying set o f peoples. How was citizenship, defined by residency within a city, to distinguish among the different classes o f New World resident so that the Spanish could retain for themselves and their descendants a monopoly on official power? The question was resolved in two stages. First, the Spanish adapted the terms o f vecindad to suit the circumstances o f a transplanted and minority population. Second, they created separate republicas o f Spaniards and native residentscalled varyingly naturales (natives), indigenas (indigenous), and indios (Indians). Repiiblica de Espanoles: As in Spain, the Spanish-American city was the source o f political rights and duties for its Spanish inhabitants. Civil status, legal rights and political power derived from citizenship (vecindad) in a municipality. Yet the new context led to a reconceptualization o f the categories o f resident who could be
' Covarrubias Horozco, Tesoro de la lengva castellana. According to Covamibias, villa originally was a settlement in the countryside, separate from and outside o f a city in which laborers worked for their lord.
51
considered fully enfranchised in the system. Over the course o f the colonial period, adaptations o f the practical meaning o f vecindad proved adept at integrating new members into elite political society when such integration was in the interest o f the community. Such integration began with the conquest. In Spain, civil society was divided into the nobles (caballeros or hidalgos), professions (ciudadanos) and householders who came from the common classes (vecinos).iX In Central America, the former two categories immediately merged, and at the time o f conquest, any Spaniard who established his residence in a town or city could register as a vecino and was fully enfranchised. As vecinos, the Spanish residents o f a city qualified for allocation o f land and conquered Indian villages, in the initial years, and to rent city lands in subsequent generations. They also became eligible to serve their communities by holding public office as mayors and aldermen, and were required to contribute to local taxes and military needs identified by the governor or town council. The rest o f the city inhabitants, o f Indian, African or mixed heritage, were excluded from the group o f vecinos. Instead, they were the public, part o f the comun and pleve (plebe), a class which was represented not by the official city government, the cabildo, but by their own
Covarrubias characterized villanos as very rustic and unpeacefiil. The entry continues that De villanos se dixo villania, per el hecho descortes y grosero. 4 1 In early seventeenth century Spain, the term ciudadano was used for the professional residents o f a city who could aspire to hold municipal office. The less specific term vecino was used in the Americas to indicate fully enfranchised city residents. Ciudadano el que vive en la ciudad y come de su hasienda, renta o heredad: es un estado medio entre cavalleros, o hidalgos, y entre los oficiales mecanicos. Cuentase entre los ciudadanos los letrados y los profesan letras y artes liberates; guardado en
52
neighborhood justicias*2 By making vecindad open to all conquistadores, governors could reward their followers while establishing a permanent community in which all Spaniards had a stake in its survival and development and incentive to remain unified against Indian and African subjects. Vecindad served to integrate later arrivals, as well as subsequent generations, into the political community because it demanded evidence o f permanent settlement marriage or an established householdrather than place o f birth for inclusion. Thus, both married sons and daughters o f the original settlers, as well as other relatives and immigrants, became vecinos when they maintained their own households (casa poblada). By the seventeenth century, vecindad could also be authorized to an individual who had lived in a city for four years, owned property there, and attended council meetings when called.43 The result in Central America was an incentive for Spaniards and other immigrants living and doing business in the cities o f the Kingdom to set up households in the cities or towns o f their residence. This incentive increased for those who wanted to participate in local politics, for membership on the town council was limited to vecinos and then further restricted to men with specific credentials: not just an independent household {vecindad) but untarnished Spanish lineage and appropriate circumstances. Leons town
esto en razon de repartir los oficios, la costumbre y fuero del Reyno o tierra. See entries for both terms in Covarrubias, Tesoro de la lengua castellana. 43 Plebeyo: el hombre baxo en la republica, y que ni es cavallero ni hidalgo ni ciudadno, Lat - plebeius, la plebe. Covarrubias Horozco, Tesoro de la lengua casatellana. 43 Recopilacion de Indias, Book 4, Title 5, Laws 6 and 8, and Book 4, Title 10, Law 6 (21 April 1554). Miguel Molina Martinez, El municipio en America', aproximacion a su desarrollo historica (Granada: Union Iberoamericana de Municipalidades, 1996), p. 48.
53
council, at the close o f the eighteenth century, referred to those eligible for municipal service as vecinos republicanos.44 The last qualification o f appropriate circumstances translated, in practice, into membership or alliance with a family o f good standing in the local community and solid financial resources in commerce, land or mining. Often, such alliances were achieved in marriages by Spanish immigrants with daughters o f prominent Creole families, in which the son-in-law acquired access to political posts, such as a seat on the town council held by his wifes father, and the family profited from the newcomers commercial network or ambition. In the colonial capital Guatemala City, most Spanish immigrants acquired their seats in this way.45 If all Spaniards were o f equal status in the first, conquest generation, divided categories o f vecinos emerged in subsequent generations. For legal purposes, all official vecinos had the same status: when giving testimony or signing a contract, an individual indicated his status by naming the city o f his vecindad, and any Spanish city o f the New
44 AGI Guatemala 414. Carta del Capitan General de Guatemala a SM, 20 March 1793. The letter summarized Leons request to return to a system of annual mayoral elections which had been replaced by biannual elections in the Ordenanza de Intendentes. 45 For numerous examples o f Spaniards achieving city posts through their fathers-in-law in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries for Santiago de los Caballeros de Guatemala, see Stephen A. Webre, "The Social and Economic Bases o f Cabildo Membership in Seventeenth-Century Santiago de Guatemala," PhD, Tulane University, 1980; and Jose Manuel Santos Perez, "Politica y comercio: el cabildo y los regidores de Santiago de Guatemala, 1713-1787." PhD, Universidad de Salamanca, 1996. Both works effectively disprove previous arguments that cabildo membership was restricted primarily to conquest-era families. Silvia Casasola Vargas and Narda Alcantara Valverde refine this argument, showing that the wealthiest and most prominent Creole families preferred to marry their daughters to members o f their own family groups to maintain family wealth and that the percentage of marriages of Creole daughters to Spaniards was lower than expected, around 25%. This genealogical survey thus indirectly confirms the hypothesis that what Spaniards achieved through their marriages to Creole daughters was not wealth but status. La estrategia matrimonial de la red de poderde Guatemala colonial. 1999 unpublished.
54
or Old World was acceptable.46 By the seventeenth century, however, distinctions were drawn between at least two different types o f Spaniardthe American-born (Creole, or criollo or americano) and the Peninsular-bom (peninsular or gachupin). By the eighteenth century, there was yet a third category (close) operating in some towns, in which a dearth o f clearly pureblooded Spaniards was addressed by conditional acceptance o f educated and well-off men o f mestizo or mulatto heritage as vecinos o f an inferior order, as we shall see below. Through adaptation to a changing society, the concept of vecindad retained its weight as a means to include or exclude individuals and families from the power of citizenship within the municipal community. Through the records of municipal office-holding, we can see how residents distinguished between criollo and peninsular vecinos, and developed mechanisms to ensure that both groups had equal access to one o f the most important rights and duties o f vecindad: a seat on the town council. The balance became codified in different ways in different cities. In Santiago, by 1700, there was an unwritten and apparently amicable understanding that provided for alternate election o f Spanish- and American-bom mayors and syndics that residents referred to as the alternativa. This understanding governed elections with only one hiccup until independence in 1821,47 In both Santiago
46 All witnesses were required to state their name and vecindad in any case. Sometimes, in addition they would provide their profession and state whether they were also native (natural) to the city they were rooted in. Notarial records as well as court cases provide numerous examples. 47 There are no regulations in the Santiago elections books that discuss this alternativa. Its existence came to light in a fight between a Spanish immigrant and the town council in the 1790s. The immigrant, Jose Victoriano de Retes argued that despite the alternativa, which had been in effect since 1700, the council was in the hands o f a small group o f families. AHN Consejos 20983, Pieza 2. See Appendix N for a list of the mayors and syndics of 1700-1800.
55
and the villa o f Sonsonate, the self-imposed balance between the two types o f Spaniard extended to eighteenth-century group sales o f aldermens seats.48 It also extended to elections o f biennial aldermen in Guatemala in the eighteenth century.49 Both Santiago and Sonsonate attracted Spanish immigrants and Creole settlers because o f their commercial importance. Santiago was the political and economic capital o f the kingdom; Sonsonate coordinated trade between Guatemala and Peru, and, to a certain extent, Mexico. Other towns that were less flourishing had a smaller group o f vecinos o f purely Spanish heritage, and faced different problems o f integration namely incorporating successful mestizos and mulattos, as well as illegitimately bom Spaniards into full vecindad. Because o f the provisions o f Spanish law, this also proved possible without deviating from extant legal tradition. The Spanish system had long-standing legal mechanisms to overcome illegitimacy as an obstacle to office. Prominent Tegucigalpa miner Manuel Vasquez y Rivera paid a fee to erase the disqualification o f illegitimacy in order to purchase a seat on the town council there.50 Other forms o f illegitimacy, namely that o f no-Spanish ancestry, were more complicated to overcome.
48 See Santos Perez, Politica y comercio, Chapter 2, for the Santiago sales o f 1741 and 1763, and AGI Guatemala 446 for titles issued from a group sale to Sonsonate in 1775 and the last successful group sale in Santiago in 1793. 49 AGCA A 1.23 Legajo 2244, Exp. 16170. Libro de elecciones, 1786-1800. After resignation o f all but one of the aldermen in 1784, Guatemala City elected 10 regidores for two-year terms between 1784 and 1792. This period coincided with the particularly onerous years o f relocating the city from Santiago to Asuncion. See Appendix O for a list o f the aldermen. 50 Manuel Vasquez y Rivera (ca. 1760-1825) proved that his two single Creole parents had not married because his father, a royal official, had died before the wedding could be accomplished. He had to pay an extra fee (dispensa) before the title was issued. AGI Guatemala 437 & 446, Titulo de Confirmacion, 1792.
56
Jose Antonio Vasconcelos and Manuel Antonio Yraeta succeeded in purchasing regimientos in late eighteenth-century San Vicente (El Salvador), despite opposition by rivals in the town who claimed both men were barred from holding office because o f their mestizo and mulatto heritage. The King confirmed both purchases, concluding that the evidence o f mixed blood wasnt conclusivealthough baptismal certificates showed that at least Vasconcelos had been registered as a ladino, a person with known African ancestry, at birth. Details o f the case suggest that the racial purity demanded of council office-holding was only selectively enforced in towns with limited numbers o f what a San Vicente witness termed the first class o f Spaniards, and that the exceptions were for the most part legal. Although witnesses at first identified both pretendants as espaiioles, or Spaniards, they eventually recanted, narrowing the definition to the third class o f Spaniard. In Spain, this meaning would imply common birth; in Central America, it meant mixed ancestry. San Vicente apparently adapted a Castilian provision allowing commoners (la plebe) to serve as one of two annually elected rural constables (alcaldes de la hermandad) to permit prominent mestizos or mulatos to hold office. Both Yraeta and Vasconcelos had held this position, and used their service to demonstrate status and as a stepping stone to a new rank. It seems likely that such promotion was not unique, when it becomes clear from a close reading of the case that the town councils objections originated with an alderman who had a long-standing land dispute with the two aspirants, and that the race question was likely the most promising way to impede the confirmation o f their titles. Had there been no enmity, there probably would have
57
been no objection to the sale o f the offices to the two men.51 Regardless o f the outcome o f this particular case, if town councils allowed known mestizos and mulatos who made up the third class o f Spaniards to serve as alcaldes de la hermandad, they were simply demonstrating that incorporation o f new groups could happen through the mechanisms o f vecindad. If vecindad was restricted to a limited category of residents o f the Kingdom of Guatemala, who made up no more than a twentieth of its inhabitants,52 it nonetheless operated at a much more open and flexible process than is generally asserted. Not only could immigrants from Spain and other parts o f the Americas become vecinos within short order, the emphasis on householder status as a prerequisite for vecindad encouraged immigrants to become members o f the local community through marriage. The constant presence and even equitable assignment o f council seats to peninsulares suggests that renovation of the community was an accepted practice. The existence o f legal provisions that could overcome illegitimacy or offer some elective positions {alcalde de la hermandad) to mobile members o f the common classes or illegitimate
5 1 Carta de Domingo Antonio Baraona, apoderado de la villa de San Vicente, 1786, AGI Guatemala 437, Remate de un regimiento sencillo de San Vicente a Jose Antonio Vasconcelos, 1792. Baraona argued that the practice was common to all three provinces o f San Salvador. Another vecino, Jose de Oyos, said that San Vicente had three classes o f Spaniards and that one way to tell if an individual belonged to the first class was to see if he had served as a mayor (alcalde ordinario) or alderman. The law referred to is likely Title 35, Law 1 (1496) o f the Novisima Recopilacion de las Leyes de Espana, which held that in every ciudad, villa o lugarof at least 30 vecinos, there would be an annual election o f two alcaldes de hermandad, one noble (del estado de los Caballeros y escuderos) and one not (el otro de los ciudadanos y pecheros). 2 The census o f 1811 listed 646,666 Indians, 313, 334 castas, and 40,000 whites. Manuel Mier y Teran, Situacion politica del Reino de Guatemala, in Carlos Melendez, ed., Textos Fundamentales de la Independencia Centroamericana ([San Jose]: Editorial Universitaria Centroamericana, 1971), p. 336.
58
children o f the elite also helped the council function in the changing population o f colonial Central America. As Appendix E shows, by the late eighteenth century, the urban population that was neither Spaniard nor Indian significantly outnumbered the other two categories, and mechanisms such as described above permitted this reality to receive at least limited acknowledgment. As we shall see in Chapter 5, this issue would surface in the nineteenth century when open elections to the town council were authorized first under the Spanish Constitution o f 1812, and again in the first twenty years after independence. Republica de Indios: Having preserved order and government for themselves, the conquistadors and Spanish Crown decreed the application of an appropriately adjusted urban model for new vassalswhat we now know as the republica de indios, the Indian Republic. Not just the Spanish cities but the principal Indian towns also owe their survival and expansion to a Spanish policy of creating separate republicas for the native inhabitants. Not only could the Spaniards only imagine themselves in cities, they also believed that for their own administrative ease, as well as for the religious and political advancement, or civilization of the Maya and other Indian communities, that city living was a requirement. City, civilization and republic (republica ) were synonymous. As we have seen, Spanish communities and individuals took an active role in creating and preserving their town governments and status. The opposite case obtained for the other communities o f the isthmus, which often had to be persuaded by Spanish authorities to live in towns. If town status gave Spaniards and Creoles significant power
59
to defend their own interests against those of their peers, the Crown and its agents, village life for the rest o f colonial society meant greater Spanish control o f their economic, political and religious behavior. The declared Spanish intention in populating the Americas was, after all, to teach them [the Indians] to know God and his sacred Law ... to hold friendship with them, and to teach them to live politically (politicamente ).53 Essentially, what the Spanish meant by Indians living politically was living where the Spaniards could find and control them and, once installed, respecting a system of governance based on a combination o f Spanish and native political traditions. Thus, the natives o f Central America experienced their own kind o f municipal conquest. Once the Spaniards had founded their own towns and cities, many Indian populations were cajoled or coerced from mountain freedom into reducciones, or urban living, by settlers, priests and governors. Once settled into pueblos de indios, they could not legally move back to the countryside or even change towns.54 This is not to say that the Indian communities that Alvarado and the other conquistadors found in Central America had lived without any urban organization or government. On the contrary, the society was both well-organized and, in the words of
53 Recopilacion, Book 4, Title 7, Law 23 (Ordenanza 136, Felipe II). 54 Recopilacion , Book 6, Title 4, Laws 18 and 19 (1604, 1618). For an extensive discussion on the Spanish conquest o f Central America, with particular emphasis on its impact on Indian populations, see W. Kramer, W.G. Lovell, and C. H. Lutz, La Conquista Espanola de Centroamerica, in Julio Pinto Soria, ed., Historia General de Centroamerica, v. 2, El Regimen Colonial (1524-1570), (Madrid: FLACSO, 1993), pp. 21-93. Fernand Braudel coined the term mountain freedom to describe the societies of European highlands who lived apart from the civilization and imperial system o f urban
60
Fuentes y Guzman, made up of three kingdoms (reinos ) with great cities with magnificent and decorous buildings... and 8-10,000 houses.55 When the Spanish set up a parallel republica for the indigenous communities, they co-opted the existing power structure in which hereditary leaders (caciques) continued to serve as intermediaries between Spaniards and the bulk o f the population. However, they also instituted a system of mayors and councilmen that followed the same structure o f that o f the Spanish town council, although the responsibilities were limited to keeping order.56 Just as the city government of Spaniards had changed in the New World, so pre conquest indigenous custom was syncretized with Spanish tradition. As Fuentes y Guzman commented, the caciques o f the Indian kingdoms began their political service with lower-level jobs to arrive at their ranking political and military posts. This tradition survived into the historians times, apparently, in the progression by Indian leaders from service as constables and scribes preceding election to the post o f mayor {alcaldes). Fuentes y Guzman approved of this procedure, claiming that reason would recommend it to all republicas, for contributing to the flourishing o f the republicas de los indios o f
and lowland achievement. Historian Adriaan Van Oss first applied it to Central America. Van Oss, Catholic Colonialism, pp. 15-17 55 Fuentes y Guzman, Recordacion Florida, Book 1, Chapter 3, pp. 701-711. 56 Book 6 o f the Recopilacion was dedicated to the laws governing Indians. Title 3 deals with the reducciones and pueblos, of which Law 15(1618) orders each town to have a native Indian mayor (alcalde) from the same place. For towns with more than 80 houses, the pueblo had 2 mayors and 2 aldermen, all o f whom had to be Indians. The maximum number of regidores for the Indian village was 4. Annual elections were to be conducted in presence of the parish priest. Law 16 explains the jurisdiction o f the mayors as solamente para inquirir, prender y traer a los delinquentes a la carcel del Pueblo de espaiioles, except in cases o f drunkenness or, failure to attend mass, when he could inflict corporal punishment or put the offender in jail for up to one day. Indian mayors were forbidden from participation in the repartimiento.
61
former times, whose good councilors had, filled with experience, benevolently reconciled happy outcomes for their kings.57 Sometimes, in fact, the Indian communities proved as adept at using the appeals system open to town councils as legitimate representatives o f the needs o f town residents as the Spanish. In the early eighteenth century, the Indians o f the pueblos of Sutiaba, Quesalbague, Pozotelga, Pozotelguilla and Teliga joined together to appeal to the King for a governor, claiming that being under the jurisdiction o f the mayors o f Leon laid them open to interference by relatives and all the vecinos . .. who treat them poorly, with this Dominion (Imperio ) passing even to their dependents (criados) and slaves, who occupied all the time they could work to pay their tributes.58 The Indians, and their supporter, the Bishop o f Nicaragua, argued that a governor, no matter how rigorous, was only one man. The cabildos o f the corregimiento o f Quezalvague (sic) authorized Cadiz and Madrid vecinos to present the case to the crown, and, like the Spanish cities, were prepared to offer a substantial donation 1500 pesosto attract the kings ear and sympathy.59 Even a limited republica was a powerful institution within the Spanish imperial system.
s' Fuentes y Guzman, Recordacion Florida, Book 1, Chapter 3, pp. 701-711. colmados de experiencias, conciliaban con benevolencia la felicidad de los sucesos para sus reyes 58 AGI Escribania, 339B. Los Indios de los Pueblos de Sutiaba, Quesalbague, Pozotelga, Pozotelguilla y Telica con el Cavildo justicia y regimiento de la Ciudad de Leon de Nicaragua, sobre petender dchos Indios y Pueblos ser govemados por corregidor Nombrado por SM y no por los Alcaldes Ordinarios de dcha. Ciudad. 1768. The origins o f the case are in a seventeenth century decision allocating the Indian villages to Leons jurisdiction, f. 217. 5 < >AGI Escribania, 339B. Los Indios de los Pueblos de Sutiaba..., f. 241.
62
Chapter 2 City & Colonial State, 1542-1700 Between 1524 and 1542, the conquistadors established the republic o f cities that would formally be incorporated into the Spanish kingdom, or politico-administrative district, o f Guatemala in 1542. In those first years, the conquest city council was, like its model in Spain, an important and respected institution o f royal government, with both significant privileges and responsibilities. It was also the only institutional secular authority. By 1542, when the Spanish Crown introduced other, directly appointed institutions o f secular government to the Americas, it was clear that their function would (at least in theory) complement and support the work o f the cabildo rather than supplant it. The real work o f the colonial administrative system legislative, executive and judicialwas on a day-to-day basis carried out by the town council, or was not done at all. City councils represented the interests o f their residents to lowly clerks but also to the king. They also directly governed vast expanses that to start out with had no independently assigned governors to question their authority. Spanish imperial officials sent after the establishment o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala supposedly supervised, mediated and took a direct gubernatorial role in indigenous provinces, but were to leave administration and justice to the Spanish town and city councils in which they resided, in the capital of each province. Historians have treated the imposition o f a formal government structure, with governors and their lieutenants, as the end of municipal autonomy and the relegation of
63
the city government to purely local administrative tasks. This relegation is based in part on the misrepresentation o f the city as a purely urban center. It also hinges on understanding disputes between cabildos and governors as disputes between local authority and Spanish authority. Certainly, there were numerous clashes between regally-appointed Spanish officials and local residents over policy differences on matters as seemingly trivial as ceremonial seating to issues as weighty as implementation o f royal orders or demarcation o f provinces. Yet, although we are led to believe that the city government, as a purely local authority, could not carry its weight in battles with the supposedly superior officialdom with royal appointments, the evidence does not bear this out. Royal treatment o f disputes that arose tended to seek a balance that gave neither council nor governor a permanent upper hand. For the Spanish Crown, it was the balance among city, governor and church that made the imperial system function and secured its position as arbiter o f justice and policy. This chapter relocates the role of the city government, the cabildo, as an equal partner within the hierarchy o f the Spanish colonial system and demonstrates how it maintained that position until well into the eighteenth century. For, two hundred years after the conquest, the imperial perspective never shifted: the cabildo or Indian community, was the official representative of its people, and o f equal status as its governors or district court judges, who represented the eyes and ears o f the Crown on the ground.
64
The Spanish Town Council As in Spain, the New World town council (cabildo or ayuntamiento) governed both rural and urban segments of the republica.1 In this corporation, as the council of Guatemala City (Santiago) declared, principally resides the care for the public good (bien publico), and in its mayors the administration o f justice o f this city and its Valley."2 The cabildo had two parts, the justicia (justice) and regimiento (government). Two mayors (alcaldes ordinarios) dispatched civil and criminal justice in the first instance while between six and twenty regidores (aldermen) handled government and administration.3 Together, justicia y regimiento carried out most police functions and oversaw everything from the price o f bread to the ceremonial reception of senior imperial officials. 4 A full city council included a syndic (procurador sindico), who prepared policy papers for the councils consideration and action, and represented it at
' Elections and appointments of council members in Guatemala Citys early years stated explicitly that mayors and aldermen would be in charge o f administration of justice and government of the city and its terminos. See, for example, election of 8 January 1525, Carmelo Saenz de Santa Maria, ed, and Maria del Carmen Deola de Giron, paleography, Libro Viejo de la Fundacion de Guatemala (Guatemala: Academia de Geografia e Historia de Guatemala, 1991), p. 12. 2 AGI Guatemala 534, Cabildo de Santiago de Guatemala, April 1728. Italics are mine. 3 Recopilacion de Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias.Tomo 2a. 4a Impresion (Madrid, 1791; Madrid 1943) Book 4, Title 10, Law 11 (1523, 1568, 1610), set the number o f regidores between 6 and 12. Principal ciudades had twelve; villas and pueblos had six. A separate law, Book 4 Title 7 Law 2 (1596/n.d.), distinguished not between ciudad and villa, but by religious presence: the metropolitana (archbishop in residence) had most 12 alderman; diocesana o sufraganea (bishop), 8; and regular villa y lugar, 4. This last category received only one, rather than two, mayors. For an explanation o f the different responsibilities attached to the regimientos, see Jose M. Santos Perez, Politica y comercio: el cabildo y los regidores de Santiago de Guatemala, 1713-1787, (PhD, Univ. o f Salamanca, 1996), Chapter 2. 4 Recopilacion, Book 4 Title 7, Law 2, [el] Juez con ritulo de Adelantado, o Alcalde mayor, o Corregidor, o Alcalde ordinario, que exerza la jurisdiccion insolidum, y juntamente con el Regimiento tenga la administracion de la republica.
65
legal functions,3 two rural constables {alcaldes de la hermandad), and a secretary, or scribe {escribano). The secretary took minutes at each meeting {sesiori) and produced the book of actas o f a years ordinary and extraordinary sessions; he earned his living through fees taken in as scribe in the mayors courts. Together,justicia y regimiento met twice weekly (ideally) to treat on matters affecting the republica. To demonstrate what Spaniards, and their American bom descendants, the Creoles, knew to be the work o f the justicia y regimiento de la republica, it is necessary to provide a detailed accounting, although the Spanish did not feel it necessary to set down a restrictive set of guidelines to either direct city councilors in their work or unduly restrict them in their endeavors. The oath taken by the first regidores entering into service in Guatemala City in 1524 provides a general outline both o f the role o f the council and the councilors understanding o f their office: [A]s good and faithful Christians fearing god...giving their consciences, will follow well and faithfully the charges o f regidores o f this villa entrusted to them: entering the cabildos on the accustomed days and others as necessary, and seeing to and procuring with all diligence and vigilance the good government {buen regimiento) and provision o f this villa', ensuring the order and good harmony that is necessary; and procuring for its advantage and welfare and that o f its householders ( vecinos) and plebe (comtin); increasing its holdings and income (propios y rentas ); ensuring that they are spent and distributed on necessities both useful and advantageous; helping and providing for the widows and orphans; [and] keeping above all the service of God and their majesties; and doing the rest that concerns and is annexed to their charges.6
5 Helen Nader, Liberty in Absolutist Spain: The Habsburg Sale o f Towns, 1516-1700 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), argues that in 16th century Castile, the syndic held a salaried position. 6 This oath is taken from the book o f acts of the first cabildo of Santiago de Guatemala, o f which the first page, with the actual description o f the founding, is missing. The full text o f this book, including a list o f vecinos who received lands in 1527 when the city was refounded, has been transcribed and published. Saenz de Santa Maria, ed, Libro Viejo, p. 7.
66
This general overview is as specific as contemporary definitions get. The Recopilacion de Indias, a compilation o f nearly two hundred years worth o f legislation published in 1680, limited its comments to aspects o f city government that were unlikely to be found in the laws governing Castilian townships, such as authority over Indian populations, or that differed significantly from the Castilian example.7 And even the peninsular compilation was silent on many aspects of municipal law, as each town after founding drafted its own regulations, the ordenanzas de buen gobiemo (ordinances o f good government), specific to its circumstances and approved individually by the king.8 As the presentation o f the activity and presence o f the city councils below shows, many o f the responsibilities o f city government were understood and taken for granted by city residents, as they had taken for granted that their government would be municipal, and cannot be found in any written legal code. City government had so much to do with the running o f everyday events, crisis management, and public spectacle, that no visitor or town dweller could ignore it, even if he or she never set foot in the halls o f the casa de cabildo. Who could fail to observe the alcaldes, who walked with their gold-tipped vara de justicia through the city streets, or the alguacil mayor or juez de policia conducting his rounds through the city streets,
' Recopilacion, Books 4, 5 & 6. Chapter 1 o f historian John Preston M oores The Cabildo in Peru Under the Bourbons: A study in the decline and resurgence o f local governments in the Audiencia o f Lima 17001824 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1966), provides a rich background to the 18th century Spanish cabildo, although Moore does not directly discuss the original Castilian regulations. 8 A list of ordinances issued by Santiago de Guatemala between 1S24 and 1S80, as well as the full texts of general ordinances from 1559 and 1580, which remained in use throughout the colonial period can be
67
markets, watering holes and agricultural lands? What man, stopped by such a patrol for drunken brawling or carrying a rock or a dagger did not remember his run-in with the law as he stood in the courtroom o f the alcalde ordinario to explain his behavior? What trader, who had to present her wares for evaluation to a regidor for proper pricing, and tavern owner or baker, who had to petition twice a year to renew her license, was not aware o f the citys power? What vecino, ordered to whitewash his house or contribute funds or supplies to the paving effort o f his street or to kill rabid dogs, had not his own ideas about the value of city government? Who had not turned to watch the full cabildo, each man proudly displaying his uniform with gold-braided hat and cape, sword buckled to his side, gather to welcome a new governor or attend a ceremony at the governors palace or the cathedral? This overwhelming set o f administrative tasks has led historians to focus their institutional studies o f the cabildo on detailed accountings o f the practical aspects o f colonial city government that included provision, fiscal and physical health, and development o f the city.9 And, since city has usually been defined as urban center, the most commonly mentioned functions o f the city relate to the urban center. Regarding judicial functions, histories treat in graphic detail such matters as the ordinances and decrees o f good government (ordenanzas and bandas de buen
found in Emesto Chinchilla Aguilar, El Ayuntamiento Colonial de la Ciudad de Guatemala (Guatemala: Editorial Universitaria, 1961), pp. 76-79 and 222-239. 9 For Central America in particular, the best work is Emesto Chinchilla Aguilar. El ayuntamiento colonial. A useful general study is John Preston Moore, The Cabildo in Peru under the Hapsburgs: A
68
gobierno ) that established regulations for each profession (blacksmith, shoemaker, miller, muleteer, baker, etc.) operating within city limits and various general rules of order.10 Regarding the citys control o f judicial and police work, they discuss the faculties o f the town constable, who policed the city, enforced imperial and local laws, turned vagrants into workers, arrested wrongdoers, turned them over to the mayors for trial, maintained the city jails, and headed patrols that were often composed o f men assigned by neighborhood Indian justices and mulatto militiamen.1 1 What gets lost in this kind of treatment is the importance o f the rural component of the city to its functioning, and the magnitude o f the responsibility and its political import o f the city council. Regulations and policing, however, did not stop at the last city street but extended into the distant countryside. The ordenanzas dealt with the use
Study in the Origins and Powers o f the Town Council in the Viceroyalty o f Peru, 1530-1700 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1954). 1 0 For example, in 1800 and again 1810, Guatemala City capitulares (councilors) revised the ordenanzas of the city artesans, retaining the authority to confirm new maestros, masters o f each craft For original Guatemalan ordenanzas, see Chinchilla Aguilar, El Ayuntamiento Colonial, pp. 76-79. AGCA A 1.2 Leg 2I89,E xp 15736, f 131, Actas de Cabildo, 1810. On 20 November 1810, the city assigned regidor Antonio Juarros to form the regulations. On 28 June 1811, regidores Jose Aycinena and Manuel Lara reported on Juarros work, and on 25 October the ayuntamiento approved the regulations. AGCA A 1.2 Exp 2189, Exp 15736, f f 91v, 135v, Actas de Cabildo, 1811. Regulations from Comayagua (Honduras) from 1560 can be found in Hector M. Leyva, Documentos Coloniales de Honduras (Tegucigalpa: Centro de Publicaciones Obispado de Choluteca, 1991), pp. 51-55. 1 1 Book 7, Title 6, Law I and 23 ordered cities and towns to build jails and provided for a regidor to visit them to ensure proper functioning. Recopilacion. For Guatemala City, see for example a 1790 complaint by Manuel Estanislao Alvares who sought to escape serving his nominated term as alcalde in the Indian barrio o f Candelaria by claiming to be a debtor. Being a debtor exempted (or, in contemporary terms, prevented) an individual from holding public office. Alvares also hoped that his wifes service in the barrios cofradia would count toward his service and exempt him. AGCA A1.2 Leg. 42, Exp. 1028. See Christopher H. Lutz, Santiago de Guatemala 1541-1773: City, Caste and the Colonial Experience (Norman: U. o f Oklahoma Press, 1994), p 42-5 for a discussion o f the Spanish alcaldes' use o f Indian justices and mulatto militiamen to patrol the city. That the practice o f using Indian city residents for patrols was extensive to other cities, see Alcaldes Ordinarios, Sonsonate, to Captain General (MYS), 20
69
o f land outside the urban center, including interdiction o f free-pasturing o f pigs and mules in the citys communal lands (ejidos) because o f the damage they caused.12 The alcalde de la hermandad was responsible for arresting and trying individuals involved in banditry, assault, robbery and other violent crimes committed outside the urban limits (casco) o f the city.1 3 When the mayors were also governors, these duties were shared.1 4 The figure o f the alcalde de la hermandad has received very little attention in Latin American historiography because of the emphasis on the urban side o f city government rather than on that o f the hinterland. This silence is likely compounded because the alcalde de hermandad rarely attended council meetings, was not a voting member, made no official reports on his activities, and so left a limited paper trail. The existence o f the provincial de la hermandad, a purchased position, which drew a salary but had no visible activity, may also have confused the question. The role o f this official, who lived in the countryside and served as the physical and political link between rural and urban Spaniard and Indian, merits further consideration, especially if sources that can
August 1817, AMS, Caja 1810-21/3, Sobre que el Ale. Mr. intento quartar (sic) la Jurisdiccion q. siempre han exercido los Alcaldes Ordin.s de este N.A. de 4 leguas encontom o... * Articles 19-20, Ordenanzas de 1580, in Chinchilla Aguilar, El Ayuntamiento colonial, pp. 234-235. 1 3 The responsibilities o f this city official are not described in the Leyes de Indias, but in the Novisima Recopilacion de las Leyes de Espana , from which peninsular law derives. The position was created by Isabella, who ordered the municipalities of Castile to appoint these officials to patrol the countryside during the insecure years when she acceded to the throne. Nader, Liberty in Absolutist Spain, p. 83. 1 4 The same author reports that the Guatemala City mayors, for the first 82 years o f the citys existance, conducted annual administrative visits through the jurisdiction. When complaints by Indian and Spaniard alike brought an end to the practice, Fuentes y Guzman argues that the fear that led to good procedures and method o f a politic and Christian life had vanished, because the Juez only arrived to investigate a atrocious crime, encouraging them to live a licentious life. Francisco Antonio de Fuentes y Guzman, Recordacion Florida, in Fuentes y Guzman, Obras Histdricas de Francisco Antonio de Fuentes y Guzman, ed. Carmelo Saenz de Santa Maria, Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles, Vol. 230, (Madrid, Ediciones Atlas, 1969-1972), Book 5, Chapter 4, pp. 205, 385, 230.
70
further detail the experiences o f the men who filled this function can be found. Although the rural constable was not a voting member o f the council, and thus unable to participate in the selection of mayor and syndic, he did share the authority of the institution and the unique position o f liaison between both city spaces. Regarding the councils broad powers to ensure the proper provisioning o f the republic, studies focus particularly on the urban center in which most administration was necessary and which received the beneficence o f the hinterland. Such studies demonstrate how each city had aldermen who maintained and ran the markets, licensed taverns, allocated water supplies,15 rented out booths in the main plaza, checked the accuracy o f weights and measures, set the price o f bread and licensed bakers, shoemakers and other artisans, and awarded the monthly contract to the towns official meat supplier. Such studies are useful, for they show the consequences o f policies as well as the intentions. For example, the merchants and landowners who made up the majority of council members took obvious advantage o f these privileges: they selected their relatives to provide the citys meat (abasto de came), corralled the best goods entering the city and often forced sales to their own clients at fixed prices, and interfered with
1 5 The city used its income from water rights to pay to maintain public waterworks, including fountains, aqueducts, and basins. For more on this subject, Stephen Webre, Water and society in a Spanish American city: Santiago de Guatemala, 1555-1773, Hispanic American Historical Review 70:1 (Feb. 1990), pp. 57-84; and Chinchilla Aguilar, El Ramo de Aguas de la Ciudad de Guatemala en la epoca colonial," Revista del Instituto de Antropologia e Historia de Guatemala 5:2 (June 1953), pp. 19-31. Fuentes y Guzman comments that Santiago received this merced on 3 February 1573 and that the annual income from this source should be slightly higher than 2000 pesos a year. Recordacion Florida, p. 209.
71
competing merchants.16 The cabildo rented the citys communal lands (ejidos ), supposedly to poor city dwellers but often to the more affluent and the church, despite provisions against such abuse.1 7 Yet if many o f the tasks o f provisioning were undertaken in the city center, it was the extensive hinterland and numerous villages o f the hinterland upon which the city government depended in order to function as intermediary guarantor o f the citys provisions. Without the vast jurisdiction, the council would not have had access to most of the goods that supplied the urban residents. The regidores, who set prices o f goods, made sure to set them in such a way that the villages in the district o f a town brought sufficient comestibles, wood, cloth and other products to the municipal markets. One of the most appreciable prerogatives that the cabildo and regimiento of Goathemala (sic) confers on its mayors, wrote Fuentes y Guzman, is the corregimiento of the Valley, composed of 77 populous pueblos, divided.. .in nine fertile
1 6 These were the juez de policia and fie l executor, selected annually or monthly from among the regidores. Although Book 4, Title 9, Law 4 o f the Recopilacion (1572) explicitly forbade mayors and aldermen from participating in provisioning, but the evidence o f abuse is abundant. Cattle rancherregidores influenced the monthly assignment o f the licence to sell meat to the city market, a city monopoly. Unsurprisingly, relatives (allegados ) usually got the lucrative contract. For egregious behavior o f the Guatemalan landowning-aldermen families, see Santos Perez, Politica y comercio, Chapter 3, and the libros de cabildo o f 1792. The latter show that regidor and landowner Pedro de Aycinena was not even allowed to excuse himself from a vote on the meat contract or from serving as the fiel executor despite a request to do so. Guatemala City syndic Sebastian Melon in 1803 blew the whistle on coercion by aldermen o f various rural tradesmen. AHN (Madrid), Consejos 20983, Pieza 20, Testimonio de los escritos (1803). On the question of markets, see a case in which a Guatemalan merchant living in Tegucigalpa protested a tax he thought was designed to keep him from competing with memberes o f the cabildo that assessed it. ANH (Tegucigalpa), Seccion Colonial, Caja 99, Doc. 3200, Domingo Payes a la Audiencia, 18 December 1806. 1 7 Book 4, Title 12, Law 5 o f the Recopilacion (1532, 1563, 1596) provided for preferential treatment for regidores in assignment o f city plots in new cities. However, a series o f recommendations o f the 1803 syndic o f Guatemala City reveals that this council interpreted its privilege as preceding the need to assign
72
and beneficial valleys.. ,[a]nd that all, for the abundance, diversity and pleasant flavor of their fruits, provide (hacen y ordenan) the regular supply and prudent granary o f Guatemala The extensive termino, with over 70,000 Indian inhabitants, was rich in water, fish, hunting, wood, flowers, and medicinal herbs. From the 28 pueblos in the outskirts alone, the city was supplied with com, beans, peppers, garbanzos, pork, lard, poultry, eggs, crockery, roofing tiles, bricks, adobe, stone, and fodder.18 Another town, San Pedro Martir, provided most of the citys wheat, and eight haciendas produced sugar, while Amatitlan provided fruits (including limes, oranges, plantains, pineapples, and papayas) and the Valle de las Vacas proved a good site to raise cattle.19 The ample and populous territories o f the other cities served the same function, although not all the districts had as varied an agricultural zone as Guatemala City. Only in emergencies that threatened the citys basic supplies did the cabildo turn to other provinces to purchase and dispense grain at reasonable prices, even if it lost money in the process.20 Without an extensive hinterland, the cities of Central America would not have controlled either supplies or prices o f incoming products.
communal lands to nearby Indian villages, a situation that outraged the whistleblower. AHN Consejos 20983, Pieza 20, Testimonio... del sindico Sebastian Melon, 1803. 1 8 Fuentes y Guzman, Recordacion Florida, Vol. 230, Book 8, Chapter 1, pp. 215-216,219. 1 9 Fuentes y Guzman, Recordacion Florida, Vol. 230, Book 9, Chapter 1, pp. 226-227, 247, 267. 20 For example, in 1785, the syndic of the capital asked the captain general to send a cordillera to the Guatemalan highlands to make them bring grain supplies to the capital. Two days later, after receiving approval form the fiscal, the message was sent. In the same shortage, Asuncion used a second tactic to procure grain, commissioning vecino Juan Rubio y Gemmir to import 200 fanegas o f com. AGCA A 1.2, Leg. 41, Exp. 1011, Juan Pedro Oyarzabal to Captain General, 3 June 1785. A 1.2.2, Leg. 2177, Exp. 15715, Libro de Actas, 1787, Session, 6 November 1787, ft". 52v-53. The servicios y meritos o f various 18th century councilors of Guatemala (AGCA A 1.2, Leg. 2331) make clear that this was a regular task.
73
Provisioning did not stop with comestibles. The hinterland also supplied the city with skilled and unskilled labor. Although cities were strictly forbidden by laws of the Indies to participate in the assignment of labor o f Crown Indians (repartimiento ), mayors in several o f Central Americas principal cities, including San Salvador and Guatemala City, were authorized as corregidores to assign them to labor not only on public works within the cities, but to individual farms.21 The outskirts o f Guatemala City, for example, sent butchers and others to dress meat, as well as laborers to work on the water system.22 Even in other cities that did not have Guatemala Citys gubernatorial status, the alcaldes ordinarios and alcaldes de santa hermandad were known to do the same.23 Without an extensive and well-populated hinterland, both legal and illegal access to Indian labor would have been impossible or at the very least severely restricted. Through its active presence in the countryside, the colonial cabildo served both as economic and also political focus for its district, with an extension that we would more likely characterize today as provincial rather than urban. Institutional studies of
2 1 For an example from Guatemala, see the complaint o f Da. Maria Josefa Landivar who found her assignment of laborers reduced by half when administration o f the valle de Guatemala became the responsibility not o f the alcaldes ordinarios but of an alcalde mayor. AHN Consejos 20953, Pieza 70, f, 1-1 v. Among her arguments, Landivar stated that the mayors had governed those pueblos since the foundation and conquest (f. 4). According to Santos Perez, however, the mayors of the capital only received the right to assign labor in 1729, after convincing the Crown that their administration would be more efficient than that o f the three jueces repartidores currently employed, not to mention less costly, saving 900 pesos in salaries granted to those functionaries. Santos Perez,Politica y comercio, p. 379. 22 Fuentes y Guzman, Recordacion Florida, Vol. 230, Book 8, Chapter 1, pp. 215-216, 219. 23 See, for example, the 1725 argument o f the alcalde mayor o f Sonsonate, who argued that the towns vecinos wanted to reestablish a defunct city council not for reasons of good government but to be able to participate in repartimiento o f Indian labor. AGI Guatemala 507, no cover sheet, ff. 66-72v, Carta de Francisco de Carrandi y Meran, 7 May 1725, Guatemala.
74
the role o f the city that focus merely on cabildo membership and responsibilities within the city casco are thus missing a large element o f the importance o f the Spanish city in the political and economic structure of Central America, and likely the Americas. As we shall see below, even after the establishment o f governors to serve as liaisons between American territories and the Crown, the responsibilities and powers of the city council for all o f the residents within its jurisdiction was not reduced, but rather complemented and, if relations between the two authorities were difficult, challenged. Yet even when challenged, the basis for any dispute was the overlap o f authority, not the illegal extension o f municipal authority to the countryside. Finally, a town council was much more than the sum o f its practical responsibilities. The city government played a very visible, symbolic and ceremonial political role both on the street and within the empire. The alferez real, or standard bearer, coordinated the citys contributions to, and participation in, official processions for various saints days and other celebrations ranging from the arrival o f a new governor or captain general to the birth or marriage o f a king.24 The urban and rural mayors carried the vara de justicia, a staff with a gold tip, which distinguished their presence as unmistakably official. To demonstrate the collaborative relationship the Crown desired for the two branches o f secular government, as well as the prestige o f the capitulares, the cabildo sat next to the highest Spanish official at important ceremonies,
24 A 1.23 Leg. 2195, Exp. 15749, f. 109. This alderman also commanded the city militia, for much o f the colonial period the most extensive form o f military presence in the ICingdom o f Guatemala. He also
75
both in secular places and in cathedrals and churches. To ensure maximum pomp and visibility, a town council courted the right to wear a uniform. In the close o f the eighteenth century, at least three proud councils o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala Guatemala City, Ciudad Real de Chiapas and San Salvadorsought and received this privilege from the King.25 Behind the scenes, the city council also was an effective representative o f local interests within the imperial system. As representative o f the republica , the city council officially recommend to the king the military, political and economic services performed by vecinos in order to increase that individuals chance for selection for an honor or salaried position.26 If a royal order or official was perceived as harmful to local interests, it was the cabildo that challenged the official locally or, when local remedies failed, wrote to the appropriate authorities in Guatemala City or Spain for redress. Unlike Spanish cities, the cities of the Americas did not have the right to attend the Cortes, or Estates General, but they were allowed to send representatives to Spain,
substituted for absent or indisposed alcaldes, through a ceremony known as deposito de vara, or custody o f the judicial staff. AGCA, RC, 8 February 1590. :5Guatemala received royal approval in 1787 to wear black uniforms, with cuffs and undercoat o f the dress coat lined in gold for gala events and white for lesser occasions; the hats were decorated in gold braid. AGCA A12.2, Leg. 2177, Exp. 15715, 1787, Libro de Actas, ff. 31-32. In 1798, the king granted the cabildo o f San Salvador the right to wear the same uniform. As late as 1818, the city fathers of Ciudad Real de San Cristobal (Chiapas) received equal favor. The latter praised the positive effects a uniform might have on perceptions o f the council, for they thought the distinction would stimulate the town's vecinos to willingly aspire to the dignity of padres de la patria.' AGI Guatemala 414, Intendant of San Salvador, 26 February 1798. AGI Guatemala 417, Cabildo de Ciudad Real de S. Cristobal a SM, 17 August 1818. 26 Numerous letters o f the Guatemala City town council detailing the merits and services (meritos y servicios) in favor o f its current and former members can be found in AGCA A 1.22, Legajo 2331. The town council could also recommend the merits o f clergymen, as the town o f Granada did on 29 July 1796
76
or to hire men in Spain to seek royal intervention. This right, exercised singly and in alliances, began with the conquest and continued until independence.27 One example, which we shall examine in further detail below, shows how three town councils o f the alcaldia mayor o f San Salvador arranged in the 1750s for their governor to be stripped of his post when he insisted on interfering with their custom o f repartimiento o f Indian labor and markets.* The city's representative faculty was well recognized among contemporaries, who understood that a cabildo was more than an administrative or judicial body. What the accounting o f the extensive physical, political and moral jurisdiction o f the city discovers is simply the enormity o f the job and the presence o f the town council. City government meant not just administration, or executive power, but legislative and judicial authority. Military and religious functions were included as well. The city was not just the urban center but a populated, prolific, settled countryside. The Central American city, when properly running and functioning, was
for Juan Francisco Vilches y Cabrera, whom they hoped the king would choose as the dioceses next bishop. AGI Guatemala 534. 2/ The cabildo of Santiago de Guatemala and other towns in Alvarados district sent a representative first to Mexico and later to Spain to plead for privileges and supplies in the years immediately following the conquest. See Libro Viejo, passim. 28 This fascinating case, which stretched decades and produced thousands o f pages of evidence, uncovers not only the links between Guatemala City merchants and Salvador indigo hacendados, but also the functioning o f the city council as spokesperson for elite interests. Documents include information on the prices and goods sold to Indians by the alcalde mayor; the relations between the Galvez family of Guatemala and the province o f San Salvador; the practices of repartimiento o f Indian services and of goods to Indians; and the helplessness o f a governor to counter a concerted attack by city and commercial interests. AHN Consejos 20967-20968.
77
indeed a model republic, with all the attributes we might comfortably assign a modem state. Membership in the City Council Who qualified to govern these miniature states? Membership in the council was restricted to vecinos. Outside authorities confirmed elections and ran sales of office, but only vecinos could elect, be elected, and purchase positions. Although many historians emphasize the closed nature o f accession to municipal office, election was a permanent, if restricted, fixture o f city politics. The governor, as part o f the act o f foundation, named the first officials o f the town council, the mayors and aldermen. With the demise or absence of the conquistadors, all city council positions became elective: the outgoing council members elected their replacements. In the sixteenth century, while the positions o f mayor, rural constable, and syndic continued to be elected annually by council members, the regimientos became salable offices purchased from the Crown for life and theoretically, available only to those who had the funds and background to purchase them. By the seventeenth century, the manner o f achieving municipal office was fixed. City mayors and the syndic were elected annually by the outgoing cabildo, and the aldermen's seats were purchased for life by eligible vecinos. Each January, the incoming cabildo selected its rural constables.29
29 Chinchilla Aguilar, El ayuntamiento colonial, p. 26. A royal cedula o f 28 March 1640 announced the saleability of the positions o f alcalde mayor and alcalde provincial de sta hdd. AGCA A 3110-161, f 149 The tesorero de papel sellado became saleable in 16S4. Historians have accepted that after this law was passed, purchase was the only way to acquire a regimiento. See for example, two classics, John Horace Parry, The sale o f public office in the Spanish Indies under the Hapsburgs (Berkeley: University of
78
If in theory, the seats could pass to any vecino, in practice, the town council was always in the hands o f local elites the merchants, farmers and miners who combined wealth and connections, and who sought to benefit themselves, and their communities, by taking office. Stephen Webre and Jose Manuel Santos Perez have shown the process by which new generations replaced old in the council o f the Kingdom capital Guatemala City, by incorporating different professions and new arrivals at times o f key political decisions, and allowing seats to go unfilled at times o f political quiet.30 It seems likely that the other towns and cities of the isthmus followed a similar pattern, although further research o f early cabildo records would need to confirm it. Certainly, as we shall see in the next chapters, the pattern was confirmed in eighteenth-century Tegucigalpa and Sonsonate, each the capital of alcaldias mayores?x Historians have emphasized the limits to the democratic attributes of the council, noting with particular disfavor the Habsburg conversion o f regimientos from elective to saleable offices. Yet certain freedoms obtained through even limited electoral processes. First, Spanish officials were repeatedly denied the possibility of holding municipal office, thus preventing the overlap o f the two competing authorities. Second,
California Press, 1953), and Jose Maria Ots Capdequi,."El regimen municipal hispanoamericano del periodo colonial, concejos y ciudades," Tierra Firme III-IV (1936): 353-381. 0 For numerous examples o f Spaniards achieving city posts through their fathers-in-law in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries for Santiago de los Caballeros de Guatemala, see Stephen A. Webre, "The Social and Economic Bases o f Cabildo Membership in Seventeenth-Century Santiago de Guatemala," PhD, Tulane University, 1980; and Jose Manuel Santos Perez, "Politica y comercio: el cabildo y los regidores de Santiago de Guatemala, 1713-1787" (PhD, Universidad de Salamanca, 1996). For the late eighteenth century, see Gustavo Palma Murga, Nucleos de poder local y relaciones familiares en la ciudad de Guatemala a finales del siglo XVIII, Mesoamerica 12 (1986): 241-308.
79
with the right to annually elect five city positions, members of the local elite had a means to offer temporary political status to newcomers. Given the importance o f the two mayors as chairs o f the local courts, the town vecinos thus held significant autonomy within the justice system. Third, through refusal to purchase vacant regimientos, local elites could also pressure governors to return to elections o f aldermen, which allowed a range o f vecinos to acquire government experience and access to other offices.32 Fourth, group sales and resignations also proved means to change the character o f a municipal council, as happened in at least two cities o f Central America, Guatemala City and Sonsonate, in the eighteenth century.33 Many regimientos also remained in the hands of one alderman for as long as a decade, meaning that city governments often outlived any appointed official that might oppose a local administration. Even if the seat changed hands, it frequently passed to a relative son, son-in-law, brother or cousin.34 Thus, even within the limits o f limited access to
3 1 For a list o f city councilors of Guatemala City, Sonsonate and Tegucigalpa between 1776 and 1850, see Appendices K-M. 32 Prices of council seats varied significantly. It would be interesting to chart the rise and fall o f municipal importance through such prices. Data are available in Appendices H & I. ',3 Guatemala had three group sales during the eighteenth century, each of which followed a long period o f multiple vacancies on the council. Historians have accepted contemporary arguments that individuals were disinterested in the positions because o f the work involved or the cost o f remaining in the city when their commercial and agricultural interests required frequent trips into the countryside. It seems more likely, given the circumstances surrounding the sales, that political considerations were more important. When a faction could organize the purchase of 14 (1742), 8 (1761) and 11 (1793) regimientos in Guatemala and 4 (1775) in the much smaller council o f Sonsonate, these men could be certain o f controlling the council and its resources. For the sales o f 1742 and 1761, see Santos Perez, Politica y comercio, Chapter 2, Tables II-5 and II-6. For the Guatemala sale of 1793 and Sonsonate sale o f 1775, see AGI Guatemala 446, in which the titles of the regidores explain the circumstances o f the sales. 34 See Appendix J for all sales of municipal office in the Kingdom o f Guatemala from the eighteenth century and Appendices K-M for data on councilors for three Central American citiesGuatemala City, Sonsonate and Tegucigalpa. In the late eighteenth century, many aldermen spent more than a decade on
80
city council seats, city government provided for an important amount o f political autonomy for Spaniards. Those families with representation on the council or who sought to obtain it participated actively in the selection o f their judges and representatives. The influence o f this right, or privilege, should not be underestimated. Republic and Imperial Power The city council was the first but did not long remain the only institution o f secular government in the Kingdom of Guatemala. With the audience, the captain general, provincial governors, and the church, the city council was integrated into a network of imperial political power. Most o f the Kingdom o f Guatemalas population was illiterate, so one way to demonstrate this system was in a consistent and legible architectural rendering. This presentation was partly accomplished by relying on a standardized city layout; even today, it is possible to enter a rural Guatemalan town and feel ones way to the center along the straight streets that point directly to the city center. With astonishingly few exceptions, all official settlements, from the grand Asuncion de Guatemala to the smallest Indian village, respected the regular gridiron street pattern decreed for the Spanish Americas. And, like a human cell, each republica contained within it the elements o f the whole political structure.
the council. For the three cities, these men were: Miguel Ignacio Alvarez de Asturias, Pedro Jose Aycinena y Larayn, Luis Franscico Barrutia y Roma, Jose Antonio Batres y Munoz, Jose Antonio Castanedo, Rafael Ferrer, Pedro Juan de Lara, Nicolas Obregon and Manuel Jose Pavon y Munoz, (Guatemala); Juan Manuel Alcantara, Joaquin Espinoza, Francisco Antonio Gonzalez Cerezo, Juan Jacinto Herrera, Juan Miguel Midence (his brothers, Basilio and Manuel Jose were aldermen for slightly less than a decade) Manuel Antonio Vasquez y Rivera, Jose Vigil, Pedro Martir de Zelaya (Tegucigalpa); and Manuel Carrera,Casimira Jose de Cuellar, Manuel Diez Clemente, Francisco Guevara y Dongo, Eugenio Rascon, Jose Antonio Sicilia y Montoya, Jacinto Villavicencio and Rafael Ypina (Sonsonate).
81
At the heart o f each city was the central plaza, with the cathedral or parish church on one side separating the governors residence and government offices from the city hall; palacio and casa de cabildo faced each other across the square.35 At the heart o f Spanish government in the Americas were governor, Catholic church, and cabildo, each with its physical jurisdictions and official functions, some overlapping and others starkly separated/6 Secondary government office buildings, such as mints or military barracks, were located close by, as were the imposing compounds o f the principal religious orders. Important vecinos, the families o f the Creole elites, lived next or close to the plaza, which also hosted the citys central market, while the Indian and mestizo and mulatto inhabitants lived in their own neighborhoods, often beyond the paved streets and whitewashed houses of the city center. Notably absent was a visible military presence. Central American towns did not fund extensive defensive bulwarks, unlike the towns o f medieval Europe on which their
35 Santiagos original layout, as ordered by Jorge de Alvarado, called for streets to run north-south, and east-west, with a plaza of 4 solares in the center o f the city. The principal church received two solares on one side o f the town square. The city council received another 4, for the town hall, jail, and propios o f the city. Additional solares were set aside for a hospital, a fortress, and a chapel to Nuestra Senora de Remedios, before the rest of the city plots were assigned to the vecinos to build their houses. Acta, 22 November 1528, Libro Viejo, p. 30-40 j6 See Lyle McAlister, Spain and Portugal in the New W orld , pp. 149-50, for a discussion o f Spanish urban planning in the Americas and the possible origins o f this physical plant. The occupant of the fourth side o f the square varied, but the individual or offices that occupied it were close to the local power base. To take one well-known example, Basque merchant Juan Fermin de Aycinena received the fourth side o f the plaza in the new capital city o f Asuncion for his residence and storefronts from a grateful captain general in return for his backing o f the contested move from earthquake-destroyed Santiago. By around 1810, Asuncion's plaza had on the east side the cathedral, flanked by the archbishops palace and the Colegio de Infantes; on the west, the Royal Palace, seat o f the Captain General, with the Audiences courts and offices, the Contaduria General, Caxas Reales, and Mint; on the north side of the square, the City Hall, prison, meat shops, and granary, and on the south, the Royal Customs House (Real Aduana) and Marques de Aycinena. Juarros, Compendio, p. 55.
82
political system was based. Rather, as Adriaan Van Oss has observed, they were open to the surrounding landscape and favoured level valley sites.37 The forts of the Kingdom o f Guatemala were constructed where the pirates and English were, on the coasts. Thus, British friar Thomas Gage expressed surprise in the seventeenth century that he could pass directly into the city proper of Kingdom capital Guatemala City without entering through walls, or gates or passing over any bridge or finding any watch or guard to examine who I was...[without] towers, forts or bulwarks to keep out an aspiring or attempting enemy. 38 Defensive structures did not emerge even in the conflictual 1820s when British diplomat George Thompson approved o f the propertydividing gates and inclosures (sic) that gave the unwalled outskirts o f the capital the appearance o f some considerable degree o f civilization.39 The tripartite political structure reflected in the layout o f the main square was in place in Central America within a quarter century o f the conquest. Emperor Charles V acted swiftly to equip the Indies with the same range o f civil and religious institutions of government as those deployed in Spain in order to tie the various kingdoms to the person and policies o f the monarch. Revoking initial lifetime and hereditary gubernatorial appointments, the king replaced the first governors who had survived the brutal conquest campaigns first with senior officials o f both secular and religious
37 Van Oss, The Autarkic Colonial Cities o f Central America in eds. Robert J. Ross and Gerard J. Telkamp, Colonial Cities: essays on urbanism in a colonial context (Boston: M Nijoff, 1985), p. 44. 38 Thomas Gage, Travels in the New World, ed. J.E.S. Thompson (Norman: U. o f Oklahoma Press, 1958),
p. 176.
83
branches o f government. From the 1530s onward, governors received their appointments and salaries from the king, with the intention that they would represent the royal will rather than local interests or personal ambition. Central America's conquerors did not wait long to be replaced.
39 George A. Thompson, Narrative o f an Official Visit to Guatemala from Mexico (London: J. Murray, 1829), p. 131.
84
Figure 9: Jurisdiction o f New Guatemala, ca. 1776
85
Fuentes y Guzman presents this political revolution as a second conquest, reminding his readers that the cities founded by loyal Spaniards predated the royal decision to create a mechanism for direct oversight o f the settlers by salaried officials by almost two decades. The Guatemalan historian, in fact, argued that the new political system was created because the conquest was complete, cities and villas had been established, and the number o f inhabitants and inhabited places was increasing.40 It was, after all, nineteen years from the initiation of the conquest, and seventeen from the first foundation o f the city o f Guatemala City de Guatemala.. .in the year 1542, that the king ordered the unification o f the distinct territories subjugated by Alvarado, Davila and Montejo into one autonomous administrative district, a capitanla general or audiencia called the Kingdom o f Guatemala.41 This typical Spanish regional government took its functional names from its two chief political figuresa royally appointed captain general aided by an audience, or territorial court. The place-name
40 Fuentes y Guzman, Recordacion Florida, Book 9, Chapter 19, pp. 131-2. 41 Fuentes y Guzman, Recordacion Florida, Book 9, Chapter 19, p. 131. Taplin, Middle American Governors (Metuchen, NJ, Scarecrow Press, 1972), p. 73. The audiencia was originally established in Gracias a Dios (Honduras), and controlled the Yucatan peninsula through Panama. In 1549, it moved to Santiago de los Caballeros (Guatemala), where it presided until independence in 1821. After a brief extinction (1563-1568), in which Guatemala became a dependency o f the Audiencia o f New Spain and the rest o f the kingdom was assigned to a court in Panama, the Kingdom of Guatemala comprised the territories that would endure throughout the colonial period. These later formed the province o f Chiapas, Mexico, and the national states of Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Although revolts in southern New Spain led to a reassignment of Yucatan to the Guatemalan audiencia for the last decade o f Spanish rule, this top-down change had little practical impact. See also Book 2, Title 15, Law 6 o f the Recopilacion for a condensation o f the 6 reales cedulas (1543-1596) of creation and fine-tuning o f the audiencia district.
86
eventually settled upon, Guatemala, came from the city chosen as the capital, Santiago de Guatemala.42 We have seen the extensive gubernatorial powers and responsibilities o f the cabildos. The responsibilities o f the chief Spanish authorities were more indirect. In addition to serving as the chief military, financial and political officer o f the kingdom, the captain general was president o f the audiencia and as such provided for the good government and administration o f the cities and other settlements in the kingdom and could issue orders to councils to improve infrastructure.43 Among other responsibilities, he confirmed clerical appointments, appointed many lower-ranking officials and made interim appointments when provincial governorships became vacant.44 The judges ( oidores) o f the court, in turn, oversaw implementation of royal orders and advised the captain general on financial, administrative and political matters, as well as serving as
43 John Preston Moore, The Cabildo in Peru Under the Bourbons, p. 9. Although technically appended to the Viceroyalty of New Spain, the captaincy-general o f Guatemala was praetorial, meaning that decisions and appeals went directly to Spain. Y mandamos que el Gobemador y Capitan General y Presidente de la real Audiencia de ellas, tenga, use y exerza por si solo la gobemacion de aquella tierra, y de todo su distrito, asi como la tiene nuestro Virey de la Nueva Espafia, Book 2, Title 15, Law 2. The Recopilacion de Indias makes crystal clear in this law and that of Book 5, Title 9, Book 5 (1603-1633) that the president had the government (gobierao) in his charge, while the audience administered justice 43 Law 10, Book 2, Title 116, Recopilacion (1535). In Spanish, buena gobemacion y policia. The same law ordered the oidores not to interfere with the city council's use of Spaniards and Indians to complete such infrastructure building tasks as waterworks and road building. 44 See Book 5, Title 2, Law 4, Recopilacion, for regulations concerning interim nominations. Fuentes y Guzman, Recordacion Florida, devotes Book 11, Chapters 1-4 through to the responsibilities of the Captain General (Supermo gobiemo), taken from the Recopilacion. Chapter 4, p. 207, notes that among the posts for which this official names temporary replacements are all the governorships, including the governors and captains genearl of Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Comayagua; the alcalde mayor o f Tegucigalpa, provinces o f San Salvador and San Miguel; Sonsonate; Verapaz, Zapotitlan (Suchitepeques), and Chiapa(s); and governors o f Soconusco. The captain geneal also conferred titles of governors to indios principales who were able, and destined Indian laborers to agricultural or other tasks. He also confirmed elections of mayors.
87
appeals court for civil and criminal cases originating throughout the numerous districts o f the audiencia. Together, president and audiencia settled disputes from each district within the kingdom, and forwarded reports and recommendations to the Crown for political, economic, religious or military improvements. When the two authorities could not agree, or could not enforce a decision, weighty testimonials that sometimes numbered thousands o f pages sailed for Spain for resolution by the king, and his Council o f the Indies. In either case, both authorities dealt with cases in the second instance, that is, cases that had been adjudicated by city officials or governors, whose outcome compelled at least one party to demand a reconsideration o f the original decision. The imposition o f such authorities on top o f the city councils established at conquest merely added a cushion between cabildo and king, and did not interfere in the day-to-day work o f the city councils, with the exception o f the capital. The ayuntamiento o f Guatemala City, as capital o f the kingdom with official and unofficial links to all districts o f the isthmus, found itself in conflict with the captain general and audiencia on the administration o f the territories within its jurisdiction.
88
Table 2.1: Government o f the Kingdom of Guatemala (1542-1786)

nn nrmnmMTii
it
irTmiinrirT'Ttiir'iirriirrr
Central Authorities State & provincial authorities
Local authorities Central Authorities State & provincial authorities
Captain General (CG) Audiencia Intendant or Governor (Province) Alcalde Mayor or Corregidor (County) Cabildo/Ayuntamiento (Spanish City & Town) Archbishop (Secular) Provincial (Religious) Bishop (Secular, Province) Provincial (Religious) Parish Priest (County) Friar
Royal appointment Royal appointment Royal appointment Royal appt. from local nomination (CG) Election/Purchase Royal appointment Royal appointment Royal appointment Royal appt. from local nomination (Bish.) Election/Purchase
Local authorities
Several convents operated at different points during the colonial period, including: San Juan de Dios, Dominican, Mercedarian, Franciscan, Jesuits. Sources: Wortman,Government & Society, 1982, Table 13.2, p. 239; Van Oss, Catholic Colonialism, 1982.
However, the formal establishment o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala led to the creation of inferior governors o f smaller provinces within the kingdom. In addition to the captain general in Guatemala City, the king named governors o f the provinces o f Nicaragua, Honduras and Costa Rica. These officials were also meant to play an important military role protecting the coasts o f the isthmus against pirates and British incursions, and held the additional title of captains general. However, their reach was merely provincial, whereas the captain general situated in the capital shared responsibility for all the provinces with the audiencia. Within those provinces, and in districts to which no governor was appointedprincipally Chiapas, San Salvador and
89
Guatemalathe Crown set up smaller districts as well, alcaldias mayores in the jurisdictions with Spanish town councils and corregimientos in districts whose principal settlement was an Indian pueblo. These provinces took their names from the original Spanish cities and principal Indian pueblos that became their respective capitals, or cabeceras.A S The governors o f these districtsalcaldes mayores and corregidores were appointed by the king and were assigned to collect Indian tribute, assign Indian labor, and supervise, at least in theory, the activities of the local town councils.46 The number and type of districtsand governorswithin the kingdom o f Guatemala fluctuated from a high o f 32 in 1654 to a low o f 20 by the mid-eighteenth century (see Appendix C), but at no point did a Spanish city find itself stripped o f its position as capital of at least a district within a greater province. Since the city councils had carried out these often-profitable tasks without interference until 1542, they did not welcome the competition. Yet the change was not absolute. In some cases, as we have seen, including those o f kingdom capital Guatemala City and the city o f San Salvador, the city mayors held the official titles o f corregidores o f their jurisdiction, and in addition to their responsibilities in city administration, also carried out the governors duties.47
45 Law 1, Title 1, Book 5 o f the Recopilacion assigned alcaldes mayores to cities and their partidos and corregidores to cabeceras o f pueblos principales de Indios. The Spanish part o f the city name (usually a saint) was not used in provincial names. 46 Several laws discussed the corregidor's function as tribute collector. See Book 8, Title 9, Laws 9 and 10, Recopilacion. 47 See Footnote44.
90
Over time, the hierarchy that distinguished between alcaldes mayores and corregidores fell into disuse.48 In the 1700s, the Bourbons acknowledged this elision by calling all new districts alcaldias mayores, regardless o f whether the district had a Spanish city, or not (e.g. Tuxtla, Chiapas).49 Yet, the gobernaciones, alcaldias mayores and corregimientos established in the sixteenth century retained their distinctive titles and local governments. It is useful for historical purposes to recall that most corregidores did not have to contend directly with a Spanish town council when exercising their office whereas alcaldes mayores shared or contested much gubernatorial authority with a cabildo.50 The third arm o f the colonial government, following the secular imperial agents and the local institution, was the church. The religious provinces coincided with secular districts, but had their own government. By 1534, Guatemala had its first bishop, Francisco Marroquin, who had been priest to Alvarados conquistadors since 1530. By 1539, Leon (Nicaragua), Ciudad Real (Chiapas) and Trujillo (Honduras) also had dioceses, responsible for the secular parishes in the kingdom, as well as chapter-houses
48 Book 5, Title 2, Law 3 (1550, 1575, 1580) o f the Recopilacion declared that pueblos de Indios encomendados would be under jurisdiction o f either corregidor or alcalde mayor, opening the way to an eliding of the two offices. 49 Guatemala 446, Ereccion de la alcaldia mayor de Tuxtla (Chiapas). In 1760, the Council of the Indies argued to divide the alcaldia mayor o f Chiapas because there were too many pueblos for one governor. The king commissioned a report from the audiencia o f Guatemala, reviewed it and in 1768 authorized erection o f the alcaldia mayo o f Tuxtla, confirming an interim appointment o f Spanish-bom Guatemala city regidor Col. Juan Oliver to a five-year term as governor. 50 Most historians emphasize the loss o f hierarchical distinction among the type o f district without acknowledging that work conditions differed in a region that had a Spanish cabildo and one that didn't. For a recent example of this argument, see Stephen Webre, Poder e ideologia: La Consolidacion del sistema colonial (1542-1700), in Julio Pinto Soria, ed., Historia General de Centroamerica, v. 2, El Regimen Colonial (1524-/570) (Madrid: FLACSO, 1993), p. 157.
91
o f the important Dominican, Mercedarian and Franciscan religious orders. The bishops, with their ecclesiastic councils (cabildo eclesiastico ) resided in provincial capitals, and dispatched priests to serve in the countryside. Generally, a priest was responsible for a series o f parishes, and resided in a district capital (cabecera ), commuting to distant settlements at irregular intervals.51 The overlay o f religious institutions on top of the secular municipal network served to consolidate the regional developments o f the conquest. Spanish colonial authority congregated in the cabeceras o f each province, with the priest, the members o f the city council or Indian justicia, governor and any treasury officials cohabitating in much the same way as president, audience, cathedral chapter and city council shared the capital, Guatemala City. Those who could appoint agents to help with their work outside the termino o f the city did so. Generally, such comisionados were limited to a coadjutor for the priest, several lieutenants (tenientes) for the governor, and the two alcaldes de la santa hermandad, or rural constables, for the city. If the provincial capital was a Spanish town, the city mayors carried the additional title o f teniente de alcalde mayor in the governors absence and served as his interim replacement.52 It was not unusual, if there were several Spanish towns within a province, for a governor to name the mayors o f those towns his lieutenants (tenientes)
s> F or an insightful and readable analysis of the religious conquest in Central America, see Adriaan Van O ss, Catholic Colonialism , Chapters land 2, Parochial Origins and Parish Structure. 52 B ook 5, Title 3, Laws 7 & 8 o f the Recopilacion called for mayors to replace governors in the case o f the latters death in office or permanent departure. The practice in Central America was for city mayors to step in during any absence. For example, in 1802, Sonsonate mayor Jacinto Villavicencio acted as
92
as well.5'1 In many ways, every Spanish city and town, and the principal Indian settlements, behaved as if it were a capital, a situation that would complicate political development in the nineteenth century. If the original political system of church, governor and city was adequate to balance power and influence in the conquest-era Americas in such a way as to favor the king, by the eighteenth century, as Burkholder and Chandler have clearly demonstrated, authority was fixed firmly in the overseas territories. The monarchy had a difficult time enforcing unwelcome orders or extracting resources adequate to the task o f maintaining its numerous battlefronts.54 The next chapter deals with the systemic reforms of Charles III, the financial overhaul o f the 1760s and the Intendancy Reforms o f the 1780s. Yet before engaging in analysis o f the tools and impact of those reforms, it behooves us first to consider how the system o f city, governor and church functioned in the kingdom o f Guatemala two hundred years into Spanish rule. By the 1680s, as Miles Wortman has argued, the Hapsburg monarchy, despite its weakness, recognized the need for reform. In particular, it undertook a series of small measures designed to increase royal influence and control in its distant kingdoms. One o f the most important achievements of the last Hapsburg king, Charles II, was to
teniente alcalde mayor in the absence of the propietario, Manuel Coton. AMS, Caja 1, Seccion Antigua 1800-9, Alejandro Ramirez al Alcalde Ordinario de Sonsonate, Guatemala, 11 March 1802. 53 To take just one example, Asturian Cristobal Santelices, a regidor and alcalde provincial o f the Villa of Choluteca. was also teniente in the alcaldia mayor o f Tegucigalpa in the early eighteenth century. AGI Guatemala 437. Remate en D. Manuel Antonio Basques i Ribera...de Rexidor Sencillo de la Villa de Tegucigalpa, 1792, f50. 54 Mark A. Burkholder and D.S. Chandler, From Impotence to Authority: The Spanish Crown and the American Audiencias, 1687-1808 (Columbia: U. o f Missouri Press, 1977).
93
compile and index the diverse rules that governed the acts o f Spanish authorities in the Americas for the first time, in the Recopilacion de leyes de los Reynos de las Indias (1680; 1791, 4th ed.)- The eight books o f the Recopilacion codified the principal laws affecting Spanish government of the Americas and Philippines that had been issued as individual royal orders over the course o f the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The work marked an achievement in government in and o f itself, standardizing knowledge about the responsibilities o f each branch o f government.55 The organization o f the books reveals that as late as 1680, Spanish ministers still perceived o f the city council as the basic institution o f Spanish government in the Indies and, equally important, did not distinguish qualitatively between city government and provincial government.56 Whereas the responsibilities o f an audience and a viceroy or captain general each merited their own book (Books Two and Three respectively), books Four and Five together contained the regulations for city and provincial government. Separate sections (titulos) in Book Four provided regulation for discovery, pacification, population and governance. The clusters on population dealt with
ss Published in 1680, it seems likely that the foundation of the work was the compilation of secretario of the Council o f the Indies Juan Diez de la Calle. This devoted bureaucrat collected, between around 1640 and 1654, from the Council and the various audiencias, statistics and cedulas on each districts government for use of the Council in its determinations. Only the introduction was printed. A copy o f a 1646 and 1659 version of de la Calles obra maestra can be found in Madrids Biblioteca Nacional, as well as several volumes of drafts. BN Sala Cervantes, MS 1447 and MS 3023. S 6 Four books dealt with: the church; the Council o f the Indies and the audiencias;the dominio y jurisdiccion real de las Indias, including the responsibilities o f the viceroys and captains general, and the military; the government o f Indians; the control o f anti-social behavior in the form o f gaming, vagrancy and mixed blood. The final two books on financial management o f the Indies occupied one and a half of the three tomes making up the Recopilacion. Indice de los titulos que se contienen en los Libros 4,5,6,7,y 8 de la Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias, n.p. Recopilacion de Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias, Toma 2a. 4a Impresion (Madrid, 1791; Madrid 1943).
94
founding cities not provinces. Book Five combined titles on the specific divisions and obligations o f each type o f jurisdiction and official, including the different types o f governor and mayors. Yet, while each function received a separate section, what is most striking is that the two types o f political and civil government that directly affected entire populations were interlaced and treated equivalently within each book. For the compilers o f the collected wisdom o f over two hundred years o f Spanish rule in the Americas, there was no hierarchical separation o f the two institutions o f local government, town council and governor, just a series of exhortations on how to behave to each other and to respect each others joint and separate responsibilities.57 The individual laws reflected an attempt to build checks and balances into a system that was supposed to be mutually reinforcing. The aldermen on a city council had lifetime positions, whereas governorships lasted from five to ten years. Governors presided over council meetings, but could not interfere in local elections or insist that the meetings take place in his house. The governor was responsible for ensuring order the countryside, except where the rural constables (alcaldes de la hermandad) o f the city exercised their authority. Although enjoined from exercising jurisdiction over native populations, city mayors could judge cases between Spaniards and Indians. In the case o f death or departure o f a governor, the city mayor could temporarily take his
5' A similar view is clear also in the 1775 compilation of laws for peninsular Spain, Novisima Recopilacion, revised and expanded in 1805-1807. The full title of this work is Novisima recopilacion de las leyes de Espana, dividia en X II libros: en que se reforma la recopilacion...de 1567, reimpresa ultimamente en el de 1775, y incorporan las pragmaticas, cedulas, decretos, ordenes y resoluciones
95
place, but the governor could not name interim city councilors. Unexpected vacancies were filled from within council ranks. Important royal decrees were sent separately to captain general, audience and the Guatemala City town council to ensure their full distribution and execution. It would be impossible to separate out the work o f any one
part of the bureaucracy from the rest. If anything underlined the citys autonomy from structural forms of gubernatorial meddling, it was the injunctions that no captain general or governor could erect a city or town, which would separate a lesser place from its cabecera .59 In other words, only the king could alter the institutional organization o f a territory. The numerous injunctions to keep governors from attending meetings when they should not appear to have been poorly respected (why else would they require repeating?). Yet there seems to be no evidence to suggest that the councils of Central America followed the order that mayors not attend council meetings if a governor was presiding.60 It seems likely that the councils of the kingdom o f Guatemala took advantage o f the loophole written into this law: that it was to be invoked only if there was no custom to
reales, y otras providencias no recopiladas, y expedidas hasta el de 1804, mandada form ar p o r el senor don Carlos IV (Madrid: s.n., 1805-1829). 58 Recopilacion , Book 4, Title 10, Laws 5, 7-10, 12. Book 4, Title 9, Laws 2-4, 13. Book 4. Title 8, Laws 6, 8, 11. Book 5, Title 3, Law 7, 8, 14. 59 Recopilacion , Book 4, Title 8, Law 6. 60 Recopilacion , Book 5, Title 3, Law 14. Governors and mayors both attended council meetings in the eighteenth century. See the books of acts for Guatemala City, Sonsonate and Tegucigalpa. For each session, the secretary noted those anending. From the attendance it is clear that mayors not only attended but chaired each council meeting; in their absence, those in whom they had deposited their staff o f office headed the sessions in their place.
96
the contrary.61 Custom, in fact, was something the Recopilacion emphasized should be respected if local practice conflicted with official law. Thus, one law stated that in the case o f doubt, mayors would keep the jurisdiction that they had held in the past, with no novelty (novedad) until the Council o f the Indies had been informed and taken a decision.62 This permission kept the immense municipal jurisdictions intact in the Kingdom o f Guatemala. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the Hapsburg monarchy, upon whose royal decisions the Recopilacion was based, was more concerned with limiting pretensions o f externally appointed governors than those o f perpetual councils. Bearing in mind this contemporary equivalence o f alcalde ordinario, alcaldes de la santa hermandad, and alcalde mayor, it is useful to rethink what local government meant in the Spanish imperial context. Rather than separating Spanish government in the Kingdom o f Guatemala into two opposing sides o f local and imperial, or a straight line of authority, let us consider each as one side o f a two-tiered pyramid. On the top tier, were the archbishop (church), the chief town council, Guatemala City (city), and the captain general and audience (appointed officials). These three institutions had recognized authorities that extended throughout the kingdom. Guatemala City, as capital o f the kingdom was required by the king to provide reports on issues outside its jurisdiction and expected, until the 1750s, to take
61 Recopilacion, Book 4, Title 8, Law 6. 62 Recopilacion, Book 5, Title 3, Law 19 (1578).
97
on administrative tasks, such as tax collection, that required a kingdom-wide presence.63 On the second tier were the provincial and local authorities: the bishops and priests, city councils, and governors. These figures legal jurisdiction was restricted to one province or district. Although separate and definable, each authority was connected to the others at its own level, as well as to those on the top and base. From the base of the Spanish monarchy, all of the political institutions drew their legitimacy and their authority. The space within the pyramid fell within the jurisdiction o f all the authorities, a situation that could give rise to conflict as well as cooperation. Regardless, it was only together that church, city and governors comprised the active arm o f Spanish government in the Americas. Separate, each institution was incomplete. Together, the whole was solid and difficult to dislocate, unbalance or change. In fact, the political structure based on a tripartite division o f authority between city, governor and church, endured, unchanged, until the reformist era o f Carlos HI in 1759.64 City and state under the early Bourbons The result o f a system designed to balance power between competing interests in Spain and the Americas was one in which conflict was endemic. Governors and cabildos constantly sought to increase their local power at the expense o f the other authorities, with city councils emphasizing the corruptibility of the governorswhose lack of roots encouraged them to wrest as much money from Indian tributaries as
63 In 1777, for example, the fiscal o f the Council o f the Indies asked not only the high court, archbishop and Salvadoran officials to provide recommendations on how to reform San Salvadors provincial government, it also asked Guatemala Citys cabildo for input. AGI Guatemala 621.
98
possibleand governors countering with charges o f equal abuses on the part o f cities that channeled Indian labor to private farms and underpaid Indian workers and traders.65 Often, cases dragged on for up to twenty years, which suggests the inertia that had built up in a system in which long legal battles were an important tool o f both sides. Equally, interim decisions which sometimes favored a city and sometimes the governor or audiencia or captain general that the city was generally opposing, show that city councils operated as players with equal footing in local and imperial politics as the governors and judges sent from Spain to complement their authority. The contents o f individual cases underline that well into the eighteenth century, alcalde ordinario and alcalde mayor remained equivalent players within the Spanish gubernatorial hierarchy, even after a new and reformist dynasty occupied the Spanish throne in 1700. In one case that scandalized the kingdom, the captain general and audiencia o f Guatemala, on their own initiative and supported with instructions from the Crown, succeeded in the 1750s in separating Guatemala City from the majority o f its 11-league district and revoked the mayors prestigious title of corregidores. From the territory, they created two corregimientos that would do a better job o f collecting Indian tribute
64 See Appendix C for the political divisions of the Kingdom o f Guatemala between 1654 and 1800. 65 See for example a 1602 case in which the city o f Choluteca wrote to the king to denounce excesses o f jueces de miipas, alcaldes mayores, and corregidores, saying that one Spanish official created more problems than 40 or 50 Spaniards living among the Indians, and suggesting that Indians govern themselves. They called the bureaucrats official thieves, authorized by the king and ravenous lions feeding on the poor. Cabildo de la Villa de Jerez del Valle de Choluteca... 12 de noviembre 1602, in Leyva, ed., Documentos Coloniales de Honduras, pp. 108-110.
99
for the king. The citys protests, which continued for over a decade, resulted in decisions to grant various-sized jurisdictions. The cabildo appealed each time.66 At first glance the case appears to be one o f local elites fighting disinterested Spanish officials to redress the loss o f a fiefdom when, at the time o f the dismemberment o f the corregimiento, captain general and audience had united to insist on the reform, the city had been unable to prevent it. The cabildo could not argue with the evidence that royal officials would be more efficient tribute collectors than the city mayors had been, and its was interest in increased revenue that had convinced king Ferdinand VI to institute the reform.67 However, the council could and did petition the king and take advantage o f a change in captains general to make an ally o f Alonso Fernandez de Heredia in the 1760s. Through the evidence from these changes, it becomes clear that all parties were acting in self-interest, not just the council. Heredia likely traded his support for an agreement by the interested parties to purchase eleven vacant seats on the cabildo that had for years been filled by temporary appointments and wrote letters in the citys favor, which clearly gave the municipal position weight when they were considered in Spain.68 More importantly, Heredia also helped the
66 The entire case can be found in AHN Consejos 20950-20953. The case is made up o f more than 100 pieces and 3000 pages. 6' AGI Guatemala 445. Instruccion Reservada a Joseph Vazquez Prego, 25 April 1751. The previous president Joseph de Araujo y Rio had estimated the annual revnue lost due to the mayors poor record of tribute collection at 16,000 pesos in 1749. In fact, by 1751 the alcaldes mayores were collecting at least 35,000 pesos annually, more than double the estimate The new alcaldias mayores o f Chimaltenango, and Sacatepequez & Amatitan were slated to bring in 18,075 and 17,092 pesos respectively just for the semi annual tribute collected in December (tercio de navidad). 68 In 1764, seats that had been vacant for up to twenty years were sold to eleven prominent men o f the capital. The sale was to both sides' advantage. Heredia received credit for increasing local interest in
100
council unmask the duplicity o f the judges o f the audience, who had personal ties to the men they had named as corregidores in the citys place, as well as to local families, in direct contravention o f royal policy. That some o f the local families were members of the town council meant that, on some occasions, only half the council members waged the battle. In other words, what had been presented as a case o f royal reform against local corruption was in fact a battle between two vested interest groups for control of the valley o f Guatemala.69 After twenty years, the city did not get its territory back, but had succeded in establishing a precedent for having councilors or their relatives named to the important new corregimientos and had proved that the citys interests weighed as heavily with the Crown as the recommendations o f a governor or audience. The judges of the audience who had established local ties and favored their Guatemalan kin also received steep punishment from the Crown for their misbehavior.
permanent involvement in government. The new regidores, through election o f the alcaldes ordinarios, could choose the men who would, under Heredias complacent eye, serve as interim alcaldes mayores of Chimaltenango. For a discussion o f the mechanics and negotiation of the sale, see Jose Manuel Santos Perez, Politica y comercio, Chapter 2. This discussion, however, does not relate the sale to the ongoing battle to recover the corregimiento. 69 AHN Consejos 20952, Pieza 3. Letter o f Ayuntamiento, Guatemala 29 August 1766. Also AHN Consejos 20953, Pieza 55, f 174; and Pieza 94, 1764: Representacion de la ciudad de Guatemala, 29 November 1760. Audiencia judges Manuel Diaz, Juan Gonzalez Bustillo and Basilio de Villarrasa were friends with Creole corregidor Estanislao Croquer. The wife o f court fiscal Phelipe Romana was sister to Croquers wife. All four judges were friends o f corregidor Manuel Plazaola and had spent over a week at Croquers country house to celebrate his saints day. The unconnected city council members were Simon Larrazabal, Manuel Batres, Juan Fermin Aycinena, Pedro Ortiz de Letona, Pedro Ignacio de Loayza, and Ventura Najera, and they claimed that the others had formed a partido against the ayuntamiento, and were disunited from its body (cuerpo). The other four regidores Basilio Vicente Roma, Felipe Manrrique, Fernando Palomo and Cayetano Pavonwere related to fiscal Felipe Romana's wife, and by marriage, to Croquer.
101
Table 2.2: Alcaldes Mayores, Chimaltenango and Sacateplquez, 1774-1820 Alcaldia Mayor Chimaltenango Chimaltenango Chimaltenango Chimaltenango Chimaltenango Chimaltenango Chimaltenango Chimaltenango Chimaltenango Years 1776 1772 1800-1805? 1806-1807 1807 1810-12 1812:Into 1813-16, 1820 1814 Governor Simon de Larrazabal Ventura de Najera Jose del Barrio Ignacio Coronado y Ulloa Antonio Jose Arrivillaga Cayetano Jose Pavon Francisco Martinez Pacheco Jose del Barrio Yrs. in cabildo 1764-1770 1774-1793 1812-1819 1790-1791 1805, 1811-2 1781-1810 1786-1792 1812-1819
(1790-1819) Ignacio Batres y Munoz (not a member of the cabildo; his three brothers served from:) Nicolas de Obregon (removed for misuse 1770-1802 Sacatepequez 1771-1788 of tribute funds); 1776: Diego del Barco 1775-1795 1775 was Tte. Justicia Mayor, Antigua Jose Maria Martinez Zevallos 1801-5 (sec) Sacatepequez 1811-6 Sacatepequez Jose Najera y Batres (son: Ventura Najera) 1827-1840 1816: Into. Years in the cabildo of Guatemala = First and Last years. Sources: See Appendix G. Also in the 1750s, the three ayuntamientos o f the alcaldia mayor o f San SalvadorSan Salvador, San Miguel, and San Vicente allied with the powerful Galvez family in the capital to eject a governor who was not willing to work with local authorities. The interests of the merchants and landowners were, at the outset, the same. Guatemala-bom Cristobal Galvez wanted to recover his position as alcalde mayor o f the province where he had both commercial and land interests. The Galvez familys interest in the province went back almost a hundred years. Cristobals Spanish fathers first occupied the same office in 1688.70 The city councils, for their part, wanted to
70 Bartolome Galvez de Corral arrived in Guatemala from Malaga, and married into the family Baron de Barrieza. In 1688, he became Alcalde Mayor o f San Salvador, a post his descendants would hold repeatedly until the erectioin of San Salvador into an intendancy in 1786. At his death in 1715, he left as
102
return to a time when alcalde mayor, alcaldes ordinarios, and alcaldes de la hermandad had shared in the power to govern the countryside, assign Indian laborers to city works and indigo workshops (obrajes), sell goods to tribute-paying Indian communities and control the provinces mulatto militiamen. Apparently, during the Galvez tenure, such cooperation had existed. So, fronting for the Galvez, the city councils accused recently-arrived governor Bemabe de la Torre o f graft and mistreatment o f the Indian population. An initially uninterested audiencia in 1757 assigned a San Miguel-bom member o f the Guatemalan elite, Francisco Chamorro, to investigate the cities charges o f the new governors misdemeanors. The native son Chamorro unsurprisingly found the accusatory evidence more convincing than the governors defense. When, a decade later, Torre proved the falseness o f the accusations and vindicated himself, the damage had already been done. The audience proved incapable o f collecting the fines assessed against the city councilors who had peijured themselves during the case; many vecinos o f San Salvador, San Miguel and San Vicente claimed poverty or coercion and others had simply died.71 The king personally demonstrated that justice and consistency were
a legacy over 400,000 pesos. His sons Cristobal and Manuel Galvez y Corral (regidor in Santiago in 1742), served as alcaldes mayores until the 1780s, naming other relatives when they were unable to preside themselves. Santos Perez, Politica y comercio, Chapter 3. '* AHN Consejos 20967, Pieza 7, 1772. Testimonio del despacho provisional de la Audiencia de Guatemala y demas diligencias para que varios ugetos de la provincia de San Salvador y capitulares de sus tres cavildos de San Vicente, San Miguel y San Salvador exiviesen las cantidades de las multas en que salieron condenados en la sentencia pronunciada en la causa de Pesquisa en contra de D. Bemabe de la Torre de Trassierra, 42 ff. The decision suspended Torre for three years for abuses in repartimiento o f goods, and ordered him to pay one third o f the trial costs. The rest o f the costs were to come from the accusers, who also were assessed hefty fines, per the decision of the audiencia o f 27 November 1767.
103
less important than money. During the extended trial, he had named Galvez as governor in Torres place and preferred not to remove him because doing so would cancel an agreement for the Guatemalan to serve a 10-year term as governor in exchange o f forgiveness o f a debt the Crown owed to his family. The governor himself died, destitute, before he heard about his vindication.72 Given the poor example provided by the king, it is unsurprising then, that in 1774, when ordered to name an impartial interim governor the captain general named Melchor de Baronthe Galvez first cousin.73 The best the affronted audiencia could do was to name a disinterested lieutenant captain general and justicia mayor, Francisco Aldama, to try to impose some outside control and observation on the local authorities, alcalde mayor included, in 1771. Aldamas detailed and despairing report on the status of municipal and gubernatorial complicity made absolutely clear why an overhaul to the system, rather than makeshift and ad hoc adjustments would be required to change the balance o f power from local landholders and merchants, with their control o f the town council and influence over the governors, to the Crown and its directly-appointed, salaried agents.'4
'2 This case in its entirety can be found in AHN Guatemala 20967-20968. 3 AHN Consejos 20967, Pieza 2, Testimonio, f. 2v. Melchor was the son of the Galvez mothers sister (aunt), Maria Antonia Baron de Barrieza and Capt. Bernardo de Mencos. Thanks to Sylvia Casasola of UCLA for the family information. The royal order to name an interim governor was dated 1 April 1774, Madrid, and implemented in the provisional establishment o f la Hermita (soon to be Asuncion) on 22 September o f the same year. '* AGI Guatemala 621, Informe de la Audiencia de Guatemala, 6 April 1779, f lv.
104
Figure 10: Alcaldia Mayor, San Salvador, 1778
Wfl*fi
105
When taken together, both cases demonstrate the state o f government in mid eighteenth century Guatemala. Among points made clear in the Guatemala City case, the first is that for all its initial resolution to enact change, the early Bourbon rulers began with no systemic plan with which to restructure local relations, either among the officials in the Americas or between those of Spain and those overseas. Instead, as opportunity presented itself, the Crown would support locally promoted initiative. In this case, a captain general sensitive to the revenue needs o f the Crown had pushed through the creation o f two corregimientos in what had formerly been the municipal district o f Guatemala City, winning royal approval because the change would increase tribute collections at little cost to the Crown. When the local initiative vanished, due to a change o f personnel or their interests, or a shift to the balance between the different representatives o f Spanish authority in a local environment, or any other reason, the reform itself would come under attack. Such attack often packaged reform as undermining precedent, privilege and stability. The Crown, faced with a dilemma, then would try to reconcile two competing and incompatible goals. In the Guatemala City case, Charles IE weighed his need for increased revenue against the protection o f a certain degree o f preeminence for a city whose leaders represented important commercial ties that Spain also needed to encourage. He also had to judge, sifting through the pages in which opposing sides proclaimed their own lofty motivations and disparaged their rivals as self-interested and profit-driven, whether reform or status quo ante was the worse o f the two evils. The end result, as in the case o f the battle over the
106
Valley o f Guatemala, was often a Pyrrhic victory. The form o f the reform was respected: the two corregimientos survived. But its content was voided, as the local elite individuals and families who had used the council to oppose the dismemberment received nominations to serve as the new governors, with the same authority they had enjoyed before. Second, the attention accorded to the cities petitions in both cases reinforces the deep roots o f city government, with its privileges and powers, as an important element to the Spanish political system, which at times required protection rather than attack in order to ensure political and economic stability. A cabildo could bring down a misbehaving audiencia just as a reforming audiencia could undermine a city government by putting royal needs above local benefits. The Bourbon rulers, and their officials in the Council o f the Indies, understood very well the importance o f city governments position and permanence, and would not consistently support governor and president and audience against it. The goal was to maintain a balance that made the system work, not to fortify any one branch so that it might impose its will consistently on the other sides o f the pyramid. The swift punishment o f the audiencia that followed the citys proof of that bodys local interests makes clear that, for policy makers in Spain, it was not a question o f nurturing an oppositional position against the city as the representative of local government. Instead, on a case-by-case basis, the Bourbons hoped to nourish a mythical equilibrium, in which the forces deployed by the royal hand worked to achieve the Crowns ends, whether they saw it or not.
107
Third, time was generally on the side o f the city. The local kinship and power networks, and their interest in local land and labor resources, extended further and changed more slowly than did those o f the officials, no matter how well-connected. That Guatemala Citys council could solicit reports from the primarily local parish clergy that praised the mayors work as corregidores as more effective and better for their Indian parishioners and buttressed the citys position is but one example o f the benefits o f such diffuse networks.75 Compared to an alliance between three city governments and one extensively connected capitaline family, an individual outsider like Torre had small chance o f implementing policies against the interests or will o f the local power networks. Even an upright and dedicated audiencia could not do much to achieve a new balance o f power when the king himself undermined its achievements. Finally, royal leadership was essential to any sustained reformist effort. Reform overseas had to have consistent backing in the peninsula to take root, something the kings o f Spain failed to institutionalize as the wars o f the eighteenth century drained the royal coffers. Short-term economic interests repeatedly undermined long-term politicoeconomic goals. In the case o f San Salvador, both Aldama and the audiencia could point to one source of trouble, the cities monstrous jurisdiction, that led to equivalence between governor and local elites in terms o f control o f populations and land. Yet whereas the judges o f the audiencia o f the 1730s and 1750s fought tooth and
'5 AHN Consejos 20952, Pieza 56, 1760. See particularly testimonies of curates Manuel Roche (Comalapa), ff. 13v-21; Jose AntonioAlvarez (San Martin Xilotepeque), ff. 21v-30v; and Manuel Barreir (San Juan Alotenango, Amatitanes), ff. 66-70.
108
nail to limit the jurisdiction o f the alcaldes o f the capital, the 1779 audiencia shamefacedly admitted its incapacity to attempt the same reforms in the provinces. When the cabildos insisted on their privileges, the audiencia decided against issuing a challenge from knowledge o f the inconveniences that any novelty tends to produce, when not originating directly from Your Majesty.76 In both o f these cases, such royal support was not forthcoming. For effective realignment o f power, with both cabildo and governors responding to the needs o f the monarchy, Charles m had to resolve the conundrum o f taxes or tranquility. Bureaucrats in the Americas seemed unable to conceive o f fundamental change. Both Aldama and the audience recommended breaking the power o f the elites by dividing San Salvador into three separate districts and reducing the citys jurisdiction. Since the court had initially assigned the reason for inefficient government to the provinces multiplicity o f judges, it is unclear how adding new judges would subtract the problem. It seems more likely to have increased the number o f posts without dealing with the structural problems o f the networks that any new governor would have had to address and accommodate.77 Redistricting the corregimiento of Guatemala City had not changed the fundamental operations o f government in that
'6 AGI Guatemala 621, Informe de la Audiencia de Guatemala, 6 April 1779. 7 AGI Guatemala 621, Informe de la Audiencia de Guatemala, 6 April 1779, f. lv. The audiencia's solution, like Aldama's was to divide the province/alcaldia mayor o f San Salvador, although it suggested three new jurisdictions. San Salvador, to be the capital o f one part, with 47 pueblos; San Miguel, with 42, and Santa Ana Grande, with 19. The salary of 827 pesos allocated to the single alcalde mayor would be split, with 327 pesos going to the governor of San Salvador and 250 pesos each to those o f Santa Ana Grande and San Miguel. The only real innovation might have been a governor for Santa Ana, the only Salvadoran town with no cabildo
109
district either. Instead, adding two new districts had simply caused the city leadership to experiment with various forms o f co-option before settling on de facto reincorporation o f the jurisdiction through assuming the governorships. The Hapsburg imperial system, as inherited by the Bourbons, worked through alliances. Although different players had different stakes in, and different commitments to Guatemala, all had vested local interests. The Crown understood that particular motivations could undermine royal efforts to benefit the public good or common cause. Thus, located thousands o f leagues away, the monarch counted on a fungible balance o f power to unmask and control individual interests. President and audience, united, could counter the maneuverings o f local interests as expressed in the cabildo. President and audience, opposed, could expose and limit abuse o f authority by externally appointed Spanish officials. Polite, legal opposition in the form o f appeals provided a valve to express opposition or frustration in which the spleen demonstrated by the audience had no place and the monarchy continued to serve as arbiter of power. Unfortunately, this system was not an efficient one for increasing revenue for the monarch. Set up to ensure that no one institution gained too much authority over any resource or group, this system still worked to specifications two hundred years after implementation. The needs of the monarchy, however, had changed. To make reform take hold, somehow the old relationships of interdependency had to be broken. Charles Ills first attempts to do this, the financial reforms o f the 1760s paved the way for a
110
more systematic overhaul o f the entire system in the1780s. The Bourbon reformers two major projects are the subject o f the next two chapters. Charles III and his advisers had learned, after making the mistake of testing as he had in Guatemala and Salvador, that a shakeup o f the entire system was the only way to bring about durable change to meet long-term goals. Historians have characterized such reforms as centralizing, but the problem facing the Bourbon reformer was precisely a centralized power in the hands o f an urban elite and its Spanish official allies. Better government would mean more government and the creation of new centers o f power, with the goal of altering the fundamental structure o f the symbiosis between cabildo and alcalde mayor, and cabildo and audiencia and captain general. The same three agents, with the same responsibilities, would still operate in the Central American countryside. What would have changed would simply have been the number o f each. City government, however, was not the main target of these reforms: it was the governor who found himself expendable.
Ill
Chapter 3 The Bourbon Town Council & the Spanish State: Uniformity and Regionalism Part 1: The First Reforms: Taxation and Real Hacienda, 1760-1785 On the road from impotence to authority Charles HI took a measured approach to recover royal control o f the political and financial institutions o f the Americas. Directing his attentions not at the town councils, but at networks that involved local inhabitants and royal officials, he first, in the early 1760s, enacted a serires of financial measures that put the majority of colonial finances in the hands o f a new type of royal official with uniquely fiscal responsibilities. With increased revenues assured, the king then turned his attention to broader governmental reforms, seeking reports from the different kingdoms of the Americas on ways to redistrict territories and revamp government. By the 1780s, consolidation o f small provinces into intendancies was well underway throughout the Americas, and, between 1785 and 1787, implemented in the Kingdom o f Guatemala. Historians often emphasize the centralization o f the Bourbon reforms, presumably because of the territorial consolidations that went along with financial reorganization. This chapter suggests that, in fact, the underlying program to render uniform the government of the great empires o f Spanish monarchy in fact decentralized state power in the Americas while consolidating royal control.1 The
1Article 1, Instruction e ordenanza de intendentes de Buenos Ayres (1782) and Instruction e ordenanza de intendentes de Nueva Espana (1786). For early discussion o f the emphasis on retaking control o f the audiencias, see Mark A Burkholder and D.S. Chandler, From impotence to authority: the Spanish Crown and the American audiencias, 1687-1808 (Columbia: University o f Missouri Press, 1977). The word centralization has consistently been applied to Bourbon reforms by historians like John Lynch,
112
Bourbon reformers prized transparency, systematization, efficiency and increased oversight, or, in a word, more government and the uniform institutions and mechanisms o f government. Yet for each new financial reform, a new directorate was created, with its own regional bureaucracy, rather than a unified economic system. The captain general, once the unquestioned political, military, and economic head o f the kingdom found competition in the four intendants whose similar powers within their territories.2 A similar process threatened the power o f the principal Spanish cities, as the intendancy reforms finally reduced city government to its urban center and offered the trappings o f local government to smaller towns that had never achieved a status that would have supported a full town council. The intendancy reforms, however, did not bring all the disparate municipal districts o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala under new central governments, preferring to consolidate the conquest provinces which had always benefitted from regional government, and to leave the independent alcaldias mayores and corregimientos in the hands o f their governors and town councils. In short, the period after the 1760s witnessed more creation o f state and city government in Central America than had been experienced since the conquest. More government meant more government at the local level, as well as at the center. Thus, while the Bourbons
Bourbon Spain. 1700-1808 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989) and Bemabe Fernandez Hernandez, El Reino de Guatemala durante el Gobiemo de Antonio Gonzalez Saravia, 1801-1811 (Guatemala: Comision Universitaria Guatemalteca de Conmemoracion del Quinto Centenario del Descubrimiento de America, 1993), p 60. The latter writes that the goal o f the Bourbons was to centralizar, uniformar, racionalizar, y mejorar el sistema gubemativo de Espana y sus colonias. Miles Wortman applied the term more sparingly only to the establishment of intendancies, rather than the entire Bourbon program. Miles Wortman, Government and Society (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), p. 166. ' Fernandez Hernandez makes explicit that much of the resistance to the new administration came from viceroys and captains general whose functions were reduced with the establishment o f intendancies,
113
consolidated and strengthened state power, they also turned over the implementation o f government into more and more dispersed hands. By looking at the homogenizing, regionalizing tendencies o f the Bourbon reform program and localized response to it, we can begin to unravel the apparent paradox o f how sixty years o f centralization fostered universal regional instability in the independence era that grew out of competition between local elites.3 We can also better understand the common phenomenon o f revived elite interest in local government that swept through Latin America from Mexico to Peru in the last third o f the eighteenth century.4 Part o f that better understanding includes revisiting the assertion o f local resentment o f intendants, also thought to be a universal reaction to a proliferation o f broadly-powered governors, as perhaps better conceived as a new stage in long-running or revived local jockeyings for local or regional power.5 In short, greater Bourbon interest in government led to an unsurprising resurgence in local elite interest in government in order to benefit from new opportunities or challenge attacks on privileges and customs.
whereas other authors like Fisher and Moore underline local opposition. Fernandez Hernandez, El Reino de Guatemala , p. 59. 3 Recent scholarship on the Yucatan has done much to highlight the phenomenon o f elite fragmentation in the era o f the Bourbon reforms. See for example Robert W. Patch, The Bourbon Reforms, City Councils, and the Struggle for Power in Yucatan, 1770-1796, in Jaime E. Rodriguez O., ed., Mexico in the Age o f Democratic Revolutions, 1750-1850 (Boulder: Lynn Rienner Publishers, 1994) 4 See, for example, John Preston Moore, The Cabildo in Peru under the Bourbons: A study in the decline and resurgence o f local government in the Audiencia o f Lima, 1700-1824 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1966), & J.R. Fisher, Government and Society in Colonial Peru: The Intendant System, 1784-1814 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970) especially Chapter 8, Intendants and Cabildos; and John Lynch., Bourbon Spain, 1700-1808. Patch, Yucatan, 1770-1796, p. 65, 70, has also emphasized the deprivation of powers long held and valued as a result o f the Bourbon reforms. He has focused on city resentment not of intendants, however, but their deputies, the subdelegados.
114
The Bourbon Reforms The political theorists o f Bourbon Spain agreed that political power resided in the king, from whom would emanate the laws which would impose the values o f the Enlightenmentutility, prosperity and happinesson Spanish society.6 Power was unique, indivisible, insuperable and could not govern poorly, for good government was the only option for the coproprietor o f the landthe king. In the words o f minister Bernardo Ward, the goal was to achieve a constitution o f government that leaves the king absolute power to do all the good he desires.7 For Campomanes, the rights o f citizenship, including the right to establish residence, all depends on royal authority. In other words, the projects of reform did not propose to alter the fundamental relationship between king as law-giver and people as receiver of monarchical edicts. Translated into reformist practice, the ministers o f the Bourbon monarchs Ferdinand V and VI and Charles HI sought to create a system of government that was an ordered system (Campomanes) and uniform, in which the king and his ministers legislated, and other branches o f the government simply implemented. As Jose Antonio de Maravall has written, in the administrative and theoretical writings o f the period, uniform and uniformity are terms repeated ad nauseum (saciedad ).9 Uniformity in the era o f the Count of Floridablanca was to make o f a motley collection
o
5 According to Fisher, when cabildos came to demand the restoration o f rightswhat they were really seeking was the power to control that which the intendants had created. SeeMoore,The Cabildo in Peru under the Bourbons, p. 171; and Fisher, Government and Society in Colonial Peru, pp. 186, 188, 195. 6 Jose Antonio Maravall, Estudios de !a historia del pensamiento espanol (siglo XVIII) (Madrid: Biblioteca Mondadori, 1991), p. 452. 7 Cited in Maravall, Estudios de la historia, p. 456. 8 Maravall, Estudios de la historia, p. 453. 9 Maravall, Estudios de la historia, p. 455-456.
115
o f kingdoms, audiencias, corregimientos and districts a collection o f provinces that would become a common territorial basis for political organization. Leon de Arroyal wrote that equality in the division of Provinces is the cement o f good economic civil, and military administration; it is the great foundation in the art o f calculation, and is the only [division] that can put us in a state to foment this great body o f the monarchy. The same author wrote that provinces equally distributed give rise to uniformity of operations in their officers and in their employees.10 This political formula o f unity and, in some cases homogenization in the military, politico-territorial, administrative and even social spheres supposed an intense interventionism. In Spain, the first such interventions came with the establishment o f intendancies in the 1710s, a reform which took over 30 years to become institutionalized due to resistance o f threatened interest groups in the kingdoms o f the Peninsula. Ministerial reorganization also reduced the authority of the Council o f the Indies to purely judicial affairs, with executive and legislative responsibility to be returned to the king, and his ministers who would be responsible for sending orders.11 In the Americas, institutional reform began and spread much later, principally under the leadership o f Charles HI between 1759 and 1788. Although both Jose Campillo y Cosio {Nuevo Sistema de gobierno, 1743 fpub. 1789) and Bernardo Ward {Proyecto Economico, 1760, pub. 1779) had earlier recommended both a general visitation o f the
1 0 Cited in Maravall, Estudios de la historia, p. 456. 1 1 Herbert Ingram Priestly, Jose de Galvez, Visitor-General o f New Spain (1765-1771) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1916), p. 16-17. The Council also prepared recommendations for secular and religious appointments in the Indies. Galvez, later minister of the Indies, had the Council divided into three chambers, one for New Spain (Guatemala included), one for Pen), and the other for judicial duties.
116
Americas followed by institution o f the intendancies, instead a piecemeal project o f reform ensued. As had occurred earlier in Spain, a series o f fiscal agencies was set up serially in the Americas.1 2 While the first intendancy was set up in Cuba in 1764, it was not until the 1780s that most o f New Spain and Peru were ordered to redistrict their system to provide for intendancy rule. Both in the Peninsula and in the American territories, however, the principle o f a law laid down from the center and uniformly applied in the provinces could not be implemented in reality. Nor could the underlying principle o f negotiated rule be dispensed with in practice. In the Kingdom of Guatemala, as elsewhere in the Spanish empire, theoretical political authority in this period resided in the king alone, and, by appointment, in the functionaries that he designated, as had been true throughought the Ancien Regime, and political authority in practice depended on the active cooperation o f the local authorities whose task it was, at the very least, to cooperate in implementation.1 3 The First Reforms: Taxation and Real Hacienda, 1760-1785 In the 1760s, one o f Charles His first measures to recast government in the Americas was to improve its tax base, the system o f real hacienda, by introducing new taxes and professionalizing the system o f tax assignment and collection. The goal o f such reforms was not altruistic. Charles HI was interested not in improving the lot o f
1 2 For example, the tesoreria general, or general treasury, had its regulations organized in 1726. Instruccion, y ordenanza, que establezco para el goviem o de la Tesoreria general, sobre cuyo pie ha de continuar desdeprimero de mayo de esle presente ano de mil setecientosy veintey seis (Madrid, 1726). The Royal Lottery received its own regulations in 1768. Instrucciones establecidas para los posteros de la Real Loteria (Spain, 1768). But it was not until 1798 that a monarch demanded centralization for his Real Hacienda. Spain. Con esta fecha ...e l siguiente decreto: La experiencia esta constantemente demostrando la precision de que tengan un centro de unidad todas las operaciones de mi Real Hacienda
...
[Madrid, 1798],
117
his American subjects but, as he explained in the instructions he issued to Jose de Galvez in 1765 on his assignment to institute fiscal reform in Mexico (New Spain), to increas[e] as much as possible the income from the revenues [of the royal patrimony/ hacienda] .. .on account o f the large sums needed in attending to the obligations o f my royal crown. If Galvez was also instructed to improve existing systems so that the burden of imposing new contributions may be avoided, this ideal was both a wishful attempt to forestall opposition and quickly abandoned in Mexico and elsewhere. 14 In the Kingdom o f Guatemala, the goal o f increasing revenues was met through what Miles Wortman has called a series o f brilliant measures that we might call a bureaucratic revolution. 15 New monopolies on liquor (aguardiente) (1758) and tobacco (1765) were introduced, along with the official administrators who would supervise the collection o f the tax throughout the kingdom.16 Collection o f the sales tax (alcabala ) was taken out o f the hands o f city councils and put in the hands of professional administrators while monopolies previously administered from Mexico City, on playing-cards and gunpowder (also used in fireworks), were relocated to Guatemala City. At the same time, independent branches o f the different departments o f the royal hacienda were opened or expanded in four provincial capitals and several port towns. While the Crown was centralizing the government for Central America within the kingdom o f Guatemala, it paradoxically assigned significant autonomy to
1 3 Fernandez Hernandez, El Reino de Guatemala, p. 153. 1 4 Instructions to Jose de Galvez, 14 March 1765. Full text o f the instructions appears in Priestly, Jo se de G alvez, pp. 404-412. I have reversed the order of the clauses in the sentence. 1 5 Miles A. Wortman, Government and Society in Central America, 1680-1840 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), p. 139.
118
provincial branches o f the royal treasury in keeping with the philosophy o f equal distribution o f government. In financial terms, the reforms were successful. Royal income increased significantly in the years subsequent to the reforms, as Table 3.1 demonstrates, led by the astounding growth o f the tobacco monopoly.
Table 3.1 Royal Income from different sources, 1723-1725 Alcabala & Total All Other Tobacco Barlovento Income 29,231 1723-1725 152,311 (77.5) 15,081 (7.4) 196,623 79,085 1760-1763 136,822(57.1) 23,663 (9.9) 239,570 T71,8941** 99,792 338,920 1764-1768 140,139(41.3) 98,989 (29.0) 89,096 (26.5) 1771-1775 124,003 (36.9) 123,094 (36.6) 307,080 (50.5) 1805-1809 111.762(18.4) 189,194(31.1) 318,890(54.3) 1815-1819 135,030 (23.0) 132,973 (22.7) lies Wortman, Government anc'Society, Tables 7.2 (1723-1761J) and 7.5 (1771- 1819). ** Annual Profits from Tobacco, 1766-1771, Table 7.4 Most likely this figure contributes tot he growth of all other income. Indian Tribute To achieve this success, however, the Caroline fiscal reforms significantly changed the relation between government and society. As the tax categories hint, the Caroline fiscal reform measures creation of new monopolies, increased collection of extant sales taxes, and division o f the responsibilities o f the royal hacienda into separate officesaffected all members o f Central American society. How? The implementation o f these measures permanently shifted the principal tax burden from Central Americas Indian population to that o f the urban Creole and ladino populations. Indian tribute had provided up to eighty percent o f Central Americas tax base until Charles M s reforms. Year
16 Wortman, Government and Society, p. 143.
119
The second and third most important sources of funds were the alcabala, or sales tax, and the quin to real, or tax on mined silver.17 By mid-century, the focus on increasing taxes on commercial transactions dramatically changed the balance. By the end of the eighteenth century, the alcabala had grown from only 6% o f all taxes collected to almost 30%, while Indian tribute sank to less than half o f the official intake, never to rise again.
fQ
At the same time, the importance o f the tax on tobacco, in both absolute
and relative terms, increased phenomenally. In other words, the burden o f the new taxes fell on three groups: the merchants o f the capital, urban residents and those involved in the Spanish economy, and the provinces. It took a two-part assault on tax collection to achieve the shift, since those suddenly paying increasing amounts to the Crown unsurprisingly resisted. First, the Bourbon reformers took on the task o f breaking the merchant elites control o f tax collection. The principal loser in this reorganization was the city council o f the capital, which had collected the kingdoms taxes and administered several kingdom-wide
1' Jose Manuel Santos Perez, Poh'tica y comercio: el cabildo y los regidores de Santiago de Guatemala, 1713-1787, PhD, University of Salamanca, 1996, p. 349. 1 8 Wortman, Government and Society, p. 146. In 1744-8, Indian tribute reached a record 202,968 (80%) pesos, with the quinto amounting to only 12,402 (5%) pesos, and the alcabala 18,500 pesos (7.3%). By 1764-8, tribute amounted to only 140,139 pesos (41.3%), the quinto had risen to 16,003 pesos (4.7%) and the alcabala 98,989 (29%). In the same years, all other income had increased from 18,990 pesos (7. 5%) to 83,789 (24.7% ), presumably funded by the new liquor and tobacco taxes. The profit o f the tobacco tax alone was over 200,000 pesos in all but three years between 1771 and 1795, reaching the lofty and astonishing height of 383,730 pesos in 1788. Although in the 1790s, the annual royal profit dropped to around 100,000 pesos, this amount still represented a significant sum used to pay the Spanish payroll of clerical, civil and military employees and to supplement tax payments. Wortman, Government and Society, Appendix C, pp. 286-7 and p. 155.
120
monopolies, including the sales tax and taxes on liquor, sealed paper and the mail system.19 In fact, between 1749 and 1764, the Guatemala City ayuntamiento experienced the dismemberment o f all its audience-wide responsibilities. In 1749, the administration o f sealed paper, papel sellado, was separated from an aldermans position to become a full-time salaried office o f the real hacienda.20 In 1764, the same procedure was repeated with the correo mayor, or postmaster for the kingdom.21 The final loss to the city council was the right to administer the kingdoms local liquor tax, or tax on aguardiente de caha. The most important reform, however, came in 1762, the cabildo lost its contract to collect the kingdoms sales tax, since the merchant members o f the council had conflicting interests that made them poor enforcers o f the taxs conditions. The city council had traditionally assessed the tax at a rate o f 1%. The official rate had been triple this amount, but the council made a profit on the lower percentage because the o f favorable terms in the contract it had agreed on with the
19 Priestly, Jose de Galvez , p. 409. Article 20 of Visitador Jose de Galvez 1765 instructions indicated that in New Spain, as well, the revenue of alcabala was leased to villas and partidos, and that the Crown was concerned to increase productivity of the 6% tax. However, Galvez was instructed to get the extant tax collectors to share the costs o f collection rather than to establish a salaried administrator. Santos Perez, Politica y comercio, p. 115. The last three post-holders were Fernando Ignacio Colomo, Francisco Antonio Granda, and Diego Arroyave y Beteta. This post was eliminated by captain general Jose de Araujo y Rio when he found that the number o f officials paid to administer the distribution o f sealed paper was extravagant. Araujo named one individual to administer the ramo in Guatemala in return for 5% o f intake, and assigned the job to the alcaldes mayores o f the rest of the kingdom. This simple change earned the king over 3400 pesos in 1763 alone, and was a model followed in later reforms. 2 1 Jose Joaquin Pardo, Efemerides para escribir la historia de la muy noble y muy leal ciudad de Santiago de los Caballeros del Reino de Guatemala (Guatemala: Sociedad de Geografla e Historia de Guatemala, 1944), pp. 226, 235-236.
121
Crown.22 With the loss o f its extensive economic privileges, the role o f the capital citys government was thus reduced to its immediate jurisdiction, a change which, as we shall see below, did not change its self-proclaimed image as representative of the kingdom. If the thrust o f the first wave o f financial reforms required severing city ties with tax collection, it equally required new tax collectors and administrators. From the 1760s, Carlos HI placed the administration o f new and old taxes in the hands o f a new breed o f salaried fiscal bureaucrats. Neither uniformity nor centralization can be found in the solution that developed with each new element o f change. The patchwork approach that had produced separate types o f taxes, each with a contract for collection, spawned a series o f new administrations, rather than a centralized revenue service. The Direccion General de Alcabala (1763), Factoria de tabacos (1767), Contaduria Mayor (1771) and Administracion de Correos (1768) opened their main branches in Guatemala City and receptorias in the provinces. In addition to offices in the capital, the administrator o f the alcabala had branch offices in San Salvador, Leon, Ciudad Real, and Comayagua.23 The tobacco office, too, had administraciones in Granada, San
The council had first purchased the privilege of administering the alcabala in the sixteenth century. Only from 1667 to 1728 was the tax administered by royal officials, and a customs house (aduana) created. Between 1728 and 1762, the city council promised to send the Crown between 16,000 and 18,500 pesos annually (up to 29,000 pesos if a trading vessel arrived) as the kingdoms official tax collector. Although no official accounts were kept to determine the magnitude o f the citys profits in this endeavor, the relentless fight for return o f the privilege on its loss in 1667 suggests that the benefits, either in terms o f direct profit or patronage, were considerable. For additional discussion of Santiagos control o f the alcabala , see Emesto Chinchilla Aguilar, El Ayuntamiento colonial de la ciudad de Guatemala (Guatemala: Editorial Universitaria, 1961), pp. 107-114. According to this author, in 1762 the city appeared to have a surplus of 30,000 pesos for this branch o f funds. 23 Bemabe Fernandez Hernandez, El Reino de Guatemala, 1801-1811, Table, Gastos de personal del Tribunal y Contaduria de Cuentas, p. 227.
122
Salvador and Ciudad Real. Additional officials, often local residents, served as liaisons to the regional districts in areas allowed to grow tobacco, like Tegucigalpa and Copan in Honduras.24 Only the office o f the contaduria mayor, which oversaw the rest o f the colonial fiscal functions, existed uniquely in the capital, employing up to five officials and a scribe, as well as the contador.25 Thus, it would appear that the establishment o f new fiscal authorities did not have as a primary intent reenforcement o f power in district capitals. On the contrary, by selecting both Leon and Granada, and Tegucigalpa and Comayagua as locales for different fiscal authorities, the tax reforms merely reinforced what every Spanish conquest city already believed: it was a capital and a place of significant political and economic clout. In essence, these new fiscal districts represented the first official institution that formally gave economic status to the principal cities and regions of the kingdom that allowed significant autonomy in fiscal affairs from the kingdom capital. Each office had its separate staff, originally led by Spanish bureaucrats assigned from Spain in order to reduce local influence in both assignment and collection o f royal funds, and gradually supplemented with Creole elites. Equally importantly, each o f these offices had its own regulations, collections agents and agencies, and hierarchy, and if there was uniformity within each directorate, there was not between them. It was not until 1817 that Ferdinand VH established a general system for the royal treasury
24 Fernandez Hernandez, El Reino de Guatemala, 1801-1811, p. 280-283. In 1802, there were administraciones of tobacco, all dependent o f the factoria o f Gracias (Honduras) in Gracias, Comayagua, Tegucigalpa, Santa Barbara, Sensenti, and Quimistan, in the intendancy o f Comayagua, and Chiquimula, a corregimiento which became part o f Guatemala after independence.
123
{real hacienda).26 At best one can argue that the Crown centralized the control o f taxes in the hands o f royal officials, removing the responsibility from the city councils who had administered them before. The Crown remained the center o f the system, but the system itself became diffuse. In fact, the first branch offices proved unable to improve fiscal administration in the provinces. For this, a second series of reforms were needed. With new and old taxes successfully collected in the capital and its dependent districts, the extent to which the provinces had evaded paying their share to state coffers became apparent. The receipts from Guatemala Citys exit points (garitas ) from 1770-1774 declared that almost 5 million pesos worth o f clothing and merchandise had been sent to the interior. Yet for this five year period, Guatemala City had annually paid in alcabala an average o f 102,524 pesos and the interior only 37,803 pesos, a striking discrepancy. Merchants and governors in the interior each had good reason not to enforce tax collection, and the Crown responded with a redistricting in order to establish sub-administrations o f real hacienda to increase tax collection.27 The Caroline solution was to increase the rank o f the outposts o f fiscal administration in the provinces in 1776 from receptorias to real financial offices that not only increased the ease o f depositing taxes into royal coffers but promoted the
25 Fernandez Hernandez, El Reino de Guatemala, 1801-1811. Created with five officials in 1769, in 1805 the Captain General reduced the number to four to save costs. ' 6 Ferdinand VII, Real decreto para el establecimiento del sistema general de hacienda: instruccion para el repartimiento y cobranza de la contribution del reyno; y bulas dadas por el santisimo padre Pio VII en Roma a 15. 16. 17y 18 de abril de 1817, Madrid, Impr. Real, 1817; and Mexico, Reimpreso en la oficina de J.B. de Arizpe, 1817. 27 Wortman, Government and Society, p. 147. The difference is increased when the importance of the cattle trade is taken into account.
124
supervision o f bureaucratic activity by the alcaldes mayores and corregidores who still collected the taxes in their jurisdictions. As Miles Wortman has detailed, the lines drawn for economic districts subject to the new sub-administrations o f San Salvador, Leon, Chiapas and Comayagua foreshadowed the devolution o f significant judicial, political and military power to consolidated provinces. The districts designated in 1777 for the cajas later served as the foundations for those used in 1786 for the establishment o f intendancies.28 Yet as much as looking forward, the districting also harked back to the initial territorial divisions established with the conquest, consolidating as economic districts partidos that had been involved in less formal trading circuits but not bound by common institutions. The initial districting, for the most part, replicated the jurisdictions of Central Americas bishoprics, which in turn had formed in the sixteenth century around the fiefdoms o f the conquistadors. Since the intent was greater fiscal transparency and efficiency, however, exceptions were made in deference to established economic patterns. Thus the provinces o f Quezaltenango, Totonicapan, and Solola, which sent many o f their cotton goods to Chiapas, as well as San Antonio Suchitepeques, came under Chiapas fiscal control rather than Guatemalas. The alcaldia mayor of Sonsonate, an indigo- and tobacco-producing region, was added to the responsibilities o f the office (caja ) in San Salvador, as much o f the province specialized in these crops. In Honduras, the caja was moved from the diocesan and district capital of Comayagua to the mining center o f Tegucigalpa, and the caja
28 Wortman, Government and Society, p. 147-148.
125
assumed responsibility for the corregimiento of Chiquimula, which produced tabacco alongside its neighbor Copan. In the process of rationalizing commercial ties, the fiscal reforms thus underlined the weakness o f the political ties that bound each district to its nominal capital. The smaller alcaldias mayores and corregimientos might look to different governors for their judicial, political and economic needs, and this division did not foster particular identification with any outside center, but reinforced the unity o f the smaller unit which dealt independently with several. One pattern did remain the same between the early and later fiscal reforms, however: the desire to keep centralized control out o f Guatemala City. The Guatemalan treasury only retained direct fiscal control over the Caribbean port o f Omoa, the entry and exit point for most transatlantic trade.29 By the 1780s, the system had proved so effective that two o f the port towns and forts, Omoa and Truxillo, also had their own financial authorities.30 Guatemala Citys merchants thus faced important and growing obstacles in the provinces to maintaining a monopoly on trade that led them to propose a new road to Omoa, that would facilitate the transport o f goods to the capital for distribution (see Figure 11).
29 Wortman, Government and Society, p. 148. 30 Fernandez Hernandez, El Reino de Guatemala, 1801-1811, p. 243. All three were functioning in 1788, by which time Guatemala had 8 branches (cajas ), including the caja mdtriz in the capital.
126
Figure 11: Proposed Road to Omoa, 1780s
127
In essence, these new fiscal districts allowed each region to develop its own fiscal program and connections without always requiring recourse to the capital. Taxes could be paid locally and only contentious issues were referred to the caja matriz for resolution. Thanks, in large part, to the establishment o f these regional offices, by the early 1780s, rough parity was achieved between funds sent to the royal coffers by the Central Administration o f Guatemala and that provided by the interior provinces. By the 1790s, the interior provinces surpassed the capital in providing revenue, suggesting that some trade was no longer passing through Guatemala City on its way out to the provinces. This reverse trend was maintained throughout the rest o f the colonial period, although significant declines in the amounts paid by both capital and provinces began around 1800, as seen in Table 3.2. If the institutional ties linking the communities o f a province coalesced around the new fiscal centers, at the same time they became new sites o f power away from the colonial capital, fragmenting authority away from the titular head o f the colony. Guatemala Citys importance as unique capital, undisputed economic as well as political center o f the kingdom, was further eroded.
128
Table 3.2: Guatemalan Tax Collection, 1781-1819 Guatemala Central Interior Provinces Administration 1781-86 264,151 126,072* 138,080 1787-89 Missing 169,466 Missing 1790-94 270,278 111,178 159,100* 1795-99 271,163 129,438 141,725* 1800-04 228,594 85,324* 143,720 189,184 1805-09 80,806 108,388 1810-14 102,147* 194,008 91,861 1815-9 137,138 61,442 75,696* * No data for at least one year in at least one province. Prepared from data provided in Table 7.3, Annual Average of Funds sent to the Royal Coffers (1891-1819), Wortman, Government & Society, p. 150. Interior provinces included the interior of Guatemala, Salvador, Leon (Nicaragua), Tegucigalpa/Comayagua (Honduras), and Tuxtla/Ciudad Real (Chiapas). Costs of the Fiscal Reforms The initial financial benefits o f increased taxation can be seen in the numbers, but the long-term costs o f the program o f extending government and taxes must be assessed separately. For the goals o f uniformity and professionalization proved imposssible to achieve. Resentment o f the Crown and its officers for its efforts to pull all communities into the system o f direct taxation led to immediate expressions o f resentment and some upheaval, and united the Kingdoms inhabitants against a common, distant foe, and highlighted the continuing role o f the cabildo as the representative o f the people able to reduce the impact o f some externally imposed changes. If the first administrators o f the new revenue machinery were officials sent fresh from Spain, within a decade many o f the positions were staffed by native sons and Spaniards intimately connected with the region, thus undermining the drive that Year Total
129
separated financial responsibilities from local institutions such as the town council and providing professional experience for Guatemalan Creoles. Further, over time, the elites from the capital assumed many of the plum provincial jobs, indirectly reasserting authority in the provinces, and adding to existing tensions between center and provinces. Finally, the diffusion and institutionalization o f economic institutions not only foreshadowed territorial consolidation that would take place in the next twenty years, but also the fostering of a type o f regional autonomy that many authors have claimed that the Bourbon reforms aimed to excise from the colonies. Increasing and improving tax collection provoked most o f the Kingdoms communities to jointly protest their increased fiscal contributions to Spain. John Lynch describes the process of de-privatization o f revenues in 1749-1750 Spain, on which the American reforms were built, and argues that the elimination o f tax farmers and the state concentration o f administration of royal rents proved to be a popular measure of reform, advantageous to state and taxpayer alike.31 Although, as noted above, fiscally advantageous to the American branch of the Spanish imperial state, the reforms undoubtedly lacked whatever popularity they had had in the peninsula. Those most adversely affected by the new financial system, city residents and those integrated into the Central American market economy, also increased the political cost o f establishing taxes and monopolies through direct and indirect resistance. Unsurprisingly, given the focus o f the reforms and the communities affected, it was the city council of Guatemala City that led the opposition to reform, on its on behalf and
3 1 Lynch, Bourbon Spain , p. 169.
130
also on behalf o f its disgruntled residents. Through municipal organization, implementation o f the reforms to the Crowns liking proved difficult at first and impossible to achieve in the terms laid out by the uniform instructions emanating from Spain. The earliest reform, the 1750s institution o f the liquor tax, was initially farmed out to the Guatemala City town council, whose opposition to its creation had threatened the ability o f the Spanish government to apply it at all.32 The city had traditionally licensed the city taverns and grappled with the dilemma o f its responsibility to ensure good order and reduce drunkenness and disorderliness, with the profitability o f licensing the brewing o f local liquors and the sale o f wines o f Castile and Peru.33 By the 1760s, the benefit o f controlling this tax was clear. The city had contracted to pay 8,000 pesos a year to administer the aguardiente tax; in the first two years, it declared gains o f 22,669 pesos.34 When the city could not account for its intake and expenses,
32 Wortman, Government and Society, p. 142, cites the beginning o f the monopoly as 1758 but in Joaquin Pardos Efemerides, based on the city council's actas, the council receives approval of its management of the estanco on 18 February 1755 and a royal cedula confirmed this o f 31 October 1756, p. 211-213. As Jose Manuel Santos Perez has observed in Politica y Comercio, Chapter 2, the awarding o f the right to collect the alcabala to the individual merchant, Pedro Carrillo, motivated the vecinos of Santiago in 1729 to petition for the return o f the tax collecting privilege, which they had held from the conquest to 1667. This petitioning not only reviatlized the city government but also gave the city a diputacion de comercio, which functioned in practice much like a consulado de comercio, although the formal institution was not established until 1793. 33 The number o f taverns varied between 4 and 28, at a fee of 50 pesos every six months. A full list of tavern owners for the period 1764-1784 can be found in AGI Guatemala 473, Testimonio, ff. 31-50, attached to letter 513 o f Captain General Jose de Estacheria to Jose de Galvez, 12 February 1786. Archivo Historico Nacional (AHN), Madrid, Consejos 20950, Pieza 48, informs that for 1758 the city gave 12 licenses for the first half of the year, and 9 for the second. See also Pardo, Efemerides, pp. 211 passim, for notes from various city council meetings in the 1760s that discuss the licensing o f taverns and management o f drunkenness. 34 Santos Perez, Politica y comercio, pp. 365-6.; AGCA A 1.22 Leg. 1797, Exp. 11793, Actas, 1760. By 1762, the sindic Cayetano Pavon declared that the city had taken in 33,792 pesos the year before. Much o f this capital went to finance loans. A meeting in 22 January 1762 apparently authorized some o f
131
the Crown took over the monopoly in 1766, arguing the citys inability to avoid excess alcohol consumption. In 1768, the Crown accused the city o f using the unaccounted-for funds to bribe (obsequiar ) the presidents and to send to Spain (estes reynos) grand sums to sustain [the citys] designs, that is, its lawsuits and requests for privileges.35 The accusation was likely true, and perhaps masked equally improper uses o f the funds, such as profit by the individuals who administered the tax. However, the important point was that municipal opposition to Crown policies delayed the loss of city authority over this tax for over a decade. After the control o f the tax was removed, the city council found another way to get around it: increase the number o f licenses for taverns selling Spanish and other imported spirits, for each o f which the city received a 50-peso licensing fee each 6 months and thus cut down on the market for the local spirits. Captain General Estacheria issued decrees against this practice in 1786, for he claimed the citys creation o f new taverns to destroy the estanco was capricious, closing [its] eyes to the benefits that have accrued to this republic in particular regarding the conduct o f its plebes [pleve], previously most disordered.36 However, because the city was acting within its legal rights, and exercising the kind o f local prerogative that had defeated
the funds to purchase houses next to the city council building, which was bought in March for 20,000 pesos. Pardo, Efemerides, pp. 219-220. Santos Perez, Politica y comercio, citing a cedula obsequiar a los presidentes y aver remitido a estos reynos crecidas sumas para sobstener vuestros designios y relajacion.. The original source was the actas de cabildo o f 1768, AGCA A1 22 Leg. 1799, Exp 11800. 36 AGI Guatemala 473. Captain General Estacheria, Letter 513, 12 February 1786. The letter supposedly encloses a series o f reports on Estacheria's actions, but these are not in this legajo. Estacheria wrote that the city had established taverns para destruir el nuevo estanco de cana, al qual se ha opuesto dicho ayuntamiento caprichosamente, y cerrando los ojos a los beneficios que hace ver ha producido en aquella repiiblica con especialidad en la conducta de su pleve antes muy desordenada.
132
unwelcome reform since the conquest, there was little the governor could do except protest. The capitals elites did not represent the only resistance that forced the government to reconsider and renegotiate the terms o f the new tax system. After the Santiago cabildo lost the contract to collect the alcabala in 1762, Guatemalas first royal administrator, Francisco de Valdes immediately doubled the amount collected from merchants and customers by the mere expedient o f collecting the full amount of the tax. Valdes also enforced lapsed provisions calling for the tax to be calculated on all sales and resales, a measure that the tax collector-town council, staffed principally by merchants and suppliers o f the local markets, had preferred to ignore. Finally, Valdes began to tax previously tax-free transactions, including all sales o f meat and its byproducts, as well as to apply the export tax, barlovento, to indigo, the motor o f colonial Central American economy, and the import tax to European cloth.37 The rigorous application of the sales tax was unpopular with city denizens who found that they suddenly had to pay taxes on necessary items, like meat, and Indian traders resisted application o f the higher tax, as well. The new taxes also proved an opportunity for locals threatened by the new taxes to organize resistance. As in other parts o f Spanish America, the resistance was not organized, and began in individual cities and towns that suddenly had to pay in full
37 The cabildo had only needed to collect half to both pay the fixed sum agreed upon with the king and to make a tidy profit. Wortman, Government and Society , pp. 142-143, 148. For a thorough treatment of indigo production and commerce, see Robert S. Smith, Produccion y Comercio de anil en la Guatemala colonial, pp. 141-175; and for the fiscal situation o f the Kingdom of Guatemala, Miles Wortman, Rentas Publicas y Tendencias Economicas en Centroamerica, 1787-1819, pp. 245-284, in Luis Rene
133
taxes that had been previously ignored or discounted. However, unlike other instances where elites apparently vanished from the conflict when city plebes expressed discontent, in at least one important Guatemalan case, the city council mediated between masses and Spanish reformer officials and negotiated a compromise which prevented discontent from advancing to rebellion.38 As in other moments, royal officials, later supported by the Crown, set aside the fiscal uniformity proposed by the reforms in the interest o f maintaining local peace. The city council which demonstrated its negotiating skill was that o f the Kingdom capital, Asuncion de Guatemala (Guatemala City). Given the councils experience in undermining unwelcome local and royal legislation, it would seem likely that to some extent, it was also involved in stirring up popular unrest, although no evidence directly indicates that this happened. What did happen was that in 1766, the city reported the universal disgust...[with] which the resale tax was received.39 Yet it took a new tax, announced simultaneously with the revised alcabala terms, to push the mestizo and mulato populations into protest along with the rest o f the communities directly impacted by Charles His drive to increase royal revenues. On November 4, 1765, the Crown informed the Kingdom of Guatemala o f the
Caceres, ed., Lecturas de Historia de Centroamerica ([San Jose, CR]: Banco Centroamericano de Integracion Economica, 1989). 38 For an example of a vanishing Creole role, see Anthony MacFarlanes treatment of the 1765 Quito uprising in which, inexplicably, no visible role is assigned the role of the citys leading men or the cabildo in the height o f confrontation, which is presented as the plebe against the audiencia and Spanish officials. Anthony Mac Farlane, The Rebellion o f the Barrios: Urban Insurrection in Bourbon Quito, 1765 in Riots in the Cities: Popular Politics and the Urban Poor in Latin America, 1765-1910, Silvia M. Arrom and S. Ortoll, eds. (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources Books, 1996), pp. 34-41 passim. This work is reprinted from Hispanic American Historical Review 69:2 (May 1989): 283-330. 39 Pardo, Efemerides, pp. 232-234.
134
establishment o f the tobacco monopoly. Tobacco had been grown and traded in Central America since the seventeenth century, and due to the low-maintenance nature o f the crop, had been farmed extensively in both large and small quantities by diverse populations. The tobacco monopoly hurt local purchasers, the principal market, as the Crown lowered purchase prices and raised sales prices after it took control of production. It also penalized small farmers in areas that had previously grown the crop but did not receive royal licenses to continue.40 For the first time since the conquest, not only Indian tributaries but also the Kingdoms elite merchants, shopkeepers, artisans and small farmers were united in the role o f taxpayer.41 The city council, in January o f 1766, also sent two representatives to plead with the captain general not to implement the tobacco monopoly. It received the answer that since the item taxed was neither for food or other common necessities but merely for entertainement, the city should desist in its protest, because the public, which always responded to the acceptance or rejection o f its ayuntamientos, could become disorderly and ask for an uprising.42 Ten months later, simmering tensions did erupt. Yet in Guatemala City, at least, the popular classes turned to the ayuntamiento to communicate their discontent to the Spanish reformers. In November, artisans representing various gremios upset at the
40 AGI Guatemala 621 Testimonio sobre la ereccion y ramificacion de las rentas de tabacos en San Salvador, 1779, indicates that this late establishment was achieved with peace and tranquility paz y quietud. 4 Wortman, Government and Society, pp.147-148. 42 Oidor Lie. Sebastian Calvo de la Puerta to Manuel de Batres and Juan Fermin de Aycinena, 28 January 1766, Pardo, Efemerides, p. 229. In the original, podria producir el que el publico, que siempre caminaba a la mira de la acpecion o no aceptacion, de sus ayuntamientos, se desaforase y pidiese un levantamiento...
135
estancos o f tobacco, liquor, powder, and cards elected twenty-five representatives who presented a petition to the councils alferez real, Manuel de Batres. The protest read: [W]e, the poor, ask justice to give to each that which is his, as God orders in his seventh commandment, to neither take nor hold, nor desire that which is not his, against to the will o f its owner, as they do the contrary in a skilful manner, taking from each individual what is his, by means o f monopolies, customs duties and taxes.43 As John Leddy Phelan so elegantly observed when dissecting a similar anti-tax movement in 1781 New Grananda, what was at stake was partly fiscal and partly political: the taxes levied and the fact that no consultation or negotiation had proceeded their imposition. The crowd wanted not only a return to the financial status quo ante, but to an unwritten constitution in which local circumstances acceptably influenced application o f royal orders.44 In Guatemala, however, unlike New Granada, the situation was not allowed to build to the point o f a revolt. When informed, the President took the threat seriously, suspending militia activity and collecting arms from mulatto soldiers, increasing safeguards o f the royal treasure chests and receipts, and arresting the authors of the artisan petition. After negotiating with the city, the president and audience agreed to suspend application o f the sales tax to resales in small stores (menestrales, pulperos y tenderos de maritanes), to reduce the tax charged to goods sold by Indians to 1% and to lower the tax paid in other sales to the traditional 3%. As a further measure, the president authorized grain distribution to the poor. In
43 Pardo, Efemerides, p. 232-4. The Spanish reads nosotros los pobres pedimos la justicia de darle a cada uno Io que es suyo, como lo manda Dios en el septuno mandamiento, de no tomar ni tener ni querer lo ajeno contra la voluntad de su duefio, como estan haciendo lo contrario con terminos habiles, quitandole a cada uno lo que es suyo, con estancos, aduanas y alcabalas... According to an act o f the council o f 18 Novemer, the protesters also presented their complaints to the first mayor and the Franciscan order.
136
this case, the unwritten constitution returned in full force: a negotiated solution took precedence over the royal will. This diffusion o f what could have been the start o f a widespread rebellion owed much to the relationship between the city, the president and the audience. Within a week o f the petition, the city had consulted the acting bishop, Creole priest Juan Antonio Dighero, and with his advice contacted the President to coordinate conciliatory measures to calm the alteration and commotion. This coordination paid off in a banda o f 27 November, when the President underlined that he was acting in concert with the Noble Ayuntamiento and its members. The official notice underlined the councils official position o f forming the body o f the city, in which are refounded the rights o f the pueblo and informed city dwellers that the councilors would patrol the city with the militia to break up unofficial meetings (juntas) and provide against disorders.45 This alliance between city, audiencia and captain general combined with the palliative measures undertaken by the high officials restored order. Later reports to the city suggested that such unrest had manifested itself to some extent in the countryside, although without setting off the violent rebellions experienced in other parts of Latin America.46
44 John Leddy Phelan, The People and the King: The Comunero Revolution in Colombia, 1781, (London: Univeresity of Wisconsin Press, 1978), pp. xvii-xviii. 45 Pardo, Efemerides, p. 233. The Spanish reads formando el cuerpo de ciudad, en quien estan refundidos los derechos del pueblo. 46 On 31 December 1766, the Captain General informed the king that he feared a popular uprising against the aguardiente and tabacco monopolies. In the latter case, it was the lowered purchase price because of the government's lack of competition as purchaser, which was the major problem. On December 19*, the Guatemala city council had received a letter from Ometepe, dated in October, indicating that various towns were threatening uprisings in response to the rise in alcabala tax, and the institution of the two monopolies. Pardo, Efemerides, p. 234. After these murmurrings, the revolt did not materialize.
137
In addition to helping calm popular unrest, the city also acted to address the underlying problem. Claiming the extreme poverty o f the Kingdom, the cabildo wrote to the king to request the repeal o f the resale tax. Success came after tenacious battle. In 1781, the tax was entirely repealed and another tax, the alcabala de intemacion, an import tax which would have fallen primarily on the principal merchants o f the capital, was declared but never implemented. By the 1773 transfer o f the capital, when the Crown assigned the city use o f the alcabala income towards reconstruction for a tenyear period, the benefits o f the reform were finally and completely overturned.47 If the fiscal reforms succeeded in removing the control o f finances from direct city control, they did not, nor apparently did they intend to, change the role o f the cabildo as mediator between Crown, governor and people. The royal goals o f increased revenue and more formal regulations o f fiscal offices, officers and responsibilities were achieved, with the usual caveat that if local communities found a particular tax too high, and expressed this view with enough vehemence or tenacity, either a captain general or the Crown would eventually find some way to moderate or suspend the most noxious provisions until a less threatening way was found to implement them. The city council remained a key player in bridging the needs of the Crown with those o f local elites and even the pleve. The fiscal reforms took direct tax responsibilities out o f the hands o f the Guatemala elite, but soon filled its ranks of junior fiscal officials with the sons o f Spanish administrators, bom and educated in Guatemala, and o f the Central American
4' Santos Perez, Politica y comercio, pp. 363-364.
138
elite themselves. Central America was not the richest o f Spains American territories, so it is not surprising that soon after the establishment o f the new bureaucracy, it came to be staffed principally by those with local ties. Sometimes Spanish bureaucrats found posts for their sons. As early as 1783, for example the new interventor de alcabala o f Leon was Juan Martinez Truxillo, first bom son of Alonso Martinez, the Guarda Mayor of the royal income o f the kingdom.48 In 1805, Nicolas de Rivera, the Spanish administrator of the alcabala o f the capital, urged the appointment o f his Guatemalanbom son, Miguel de Rivera y Maestre, to a post as a junior official.49 More often, however, in the capital and the provinces, local merchants and landholders gained access to official posts in the towns of their residence. Thus, for the first time in the kingdoms history, provincial elites had access to similar employment opportunities in the royal bureaucracy as those o f the capital. The 1786 appointment o f Cristobal Cilieza, scion of a well-established indigo-farming and merchant family, to be the administrador de alcabalas in San Salvador is a fairly typical example.50 Once established, the practice of naming local sons to local positions took deep root. Examples are numerous, since by 1812, over 90% o f 740 political and financial positions in Central America were filled with Creoles, even if Spaniards continued to
48 AGI Guatemala 428, 14 June 1783, Nombramiento de J. Martinez Truxillo interventor de alcabalas de Leon (oficial mayor lo de aduana). 49 AGI Guatemala 430-1, Captain General Gonzalez Saravia Letter 493, 29 November 1805. The 20-year old Rivera y Maestre, a graduate of the Universidad de San Carlos in Asuncion, had already achieved a temporary appointment as a secretary ( escrivente). A real cedula o f 20 October 1775 prohibited realtives within the 4 degree o f consanguinuity and 2nd degree o f aflcion (marriage) from working in the same office. This prohibition was not absolutely followed, not only in the Rivera case, but also in the appointment of Manuel de Letona (Ortiz de Letona) to the position o f 4th official in 1805. AGI Guatemala 430, Captain General Gonzalez Saravia Letter 493, 29 November 1805 50 AGI Guatemala 428, 1 February 1786, Nomination by Captain General Jose de Estacheria.
139
predominate in the senior posts.51 Because o f the multiplicity o f administrations and their increasing presence in the provinces, most o f the posts by the early 1800s were located outside o f the capital. The office of the administrator o f the alcabala had one vista, 4 junior officials, and 3 scribes in Asuncion, as well as at least two employees each in branch offices in San Salvador, Leon, Ciudad Real, and Comayagua.52 The tobacco office had only 4 officials and one treasurer in Asuncion as well as employing officials in Granada, San Salvador and Ciudad Real. Additional officials served as liaisons to the regional districts in areas allowed to grow tobacco, like Tegucigalpa and Copan in Honduras.53 In 1802, there were administraciones o f tobacco, all dependent o f the factoria o f Gracias (Honduras) in Gracias, Comayagua, Tegucigalpa, Santa Barbara, Sensenti, and Quimistan, in the intendancy o f Comayagua, and Chiquimula, a corregimiento which became part o f Guatemala after independence. In addition to the numbers, however, it is worth underlining the quality o f the appointments. For the most part, it was sons of the ranking families, o f both main and associated branches, who became officials, and those o f the upper echelons o f the Spanish and Creole middle classes. Furthermore, as in previous centuries, accession to
51 AGI Guatemala 631, Letters 30 January 1812, via reservada. Captain General Jose de Bustamante to Real Hacienda Bustamante claimed that among the employees in the carrera politica y hacienda 671 were americanos and 69 europeos. The salary breakdown, however, favored the Spaniards, whose jobs produced 83,401 pesos, or over a third o f the total, whereas the aggregate Creole salaries were 162,430 pesos. This number indicates a preponderance o f Spaniards in the highest ranking, highest paying jobs. From 1804-1807 appointments o f principal officers o f the different sections of the real hacienda, it seems that the administrators continued to come from Spain, although these would sometimes be promoted within the Kingdom o f Guatemala and pass from one district to another, establishing ties and remaining, like Nicolas Rivera and Diego Pilona, who despite marrying a Guatemala native, Gertrudis Plazaola, became both an advisor to the intendant o f Nicaragua and a judge on the audiencia. AGI Guatemala 413. 52 Bemabe Fernandez Hernandez, El Reino de Guatemala, 1801-1811, Table, Gastos de personal del Tribunal y Contaduria de Cuentas, p. 227.
140
a post often became a family affair, with sons following fathers into royal service. Pedro Jose de Najera served at half salary as tesorero general between 1806 and 1812 for his ailing father, Francisco, who had served for 33 years in the financial bureaucracy. The Najera family, according to the captain general, was among the most distinguished families o f the capital; family members had served for over 100 years in the cabildo and were important merchants and landowners. On his fathers death, Najera received his own appointment but in Leon rather than Guatemala Citys administration because there was a bottleneck in promotions.5 -1 So many relatives served in the various offices, that the king had to issue a royal order in 1775 specifying allowable degrees of consanguinity, and, for lack o f attention, reissue the same order in 1805.55 Such jobs became means to support elite families fallen on hard times. The young Jose Francisco de Cordova, who would go on to pen Central Americas second act of independence in July 1823 and earn fame as a liberal politician, received an appointment to the tobacco administration when the death o f his father left a good family in straightened financial circumstances.56
53 Fernandez Hernandez, El Reino de Guatemala, 1801-1811, pp. 280-283. 54 AGI Guatemala 431, Letter 64, Jose de Bustamante, 18 January 1812. The captain general justified his recommendation on the grounds that the promotion would ,4 wrong many long-term employees, in a country with few salidas and promotions. 55 AGI Guatemala 430, Approval o f nomination o f escribiente and contador de alcabalas to Agustin Yzaguirre and Jose Mariano Salguero, 29 November 1805. 56 Arturo Taracena Flores, Biografias sinteticas de guatemaltecos distinguidos, Revista de la Academia Guatemalteca de Estudios Genealogicos, heraldicosy Historicos, pp. 378, 533. AGI Guatemala 624, 3 September 1811, Council of Indias to Audiencia o f Guatemala. Jose Francisco Cordova (1786-1856) was allowed to purchase the secretarys post in 1811, despite being underage, and was taken into the Renta de Tabaccos in 1809 when the death of his father, the protomedicato o f the kingdom, made it necessary for him to earn his living.
141
The availability o f posts throughout the territory fostered what Benedict Anderson might have termed a Creole functionary pilgrimage, as many kingdom-born sons found employment in provinces distant from those o f their birth and primary networks. Scattered evidence seems to indicate that over time, the sons o f the capital became more likely to achieve high-ranking appointments in the provinces than the reverse case, which led to resentment by those who found it difficult to advance within the colony.57 This rhythm likely accelerated in the stewardship of President Antonio Gonzalez Saravia (1801-1811), who created the post o f advisor (asesor) to the Captain General, and appointed Guatemalan lawyer Jose Mariano Jauregui to fill it (1801-1807). Jatireguis subsequent appointment as Director o f the Montepio de Aftil, a fund established in 1782 to permit indigo planters to borrow funds from sources other than the merchants o f the capital, in fact signals the failure o f the new series o f royal positions to live up to the promise o f providing equal access to all.58 If even an
5' AGI Guatemala 431, Sugetos postuladores para el puesto del ministro tesorero de camas de Guatemala, por el muerto de Francisco Naxera. For example, in 1812, Jose Mariano Batres y Asturias, of two important Santiago hacendado and town council families, was named contador in San Salvador after 12 years o f bureaucratic service at a salary of 1500 pesos, while a son o f Pedro Ortiz de Letona, the former correo mayor became treasurer o f Trujillo. Ortiz de Letona had 41 years o f service under his belt before achieiving a post that offered both a 1500 peso salary and significant opportunities to engage in contraband smuggling with the English. Batres y Asturias brother Manuel Antonio was the secretary (escribiente) o f the treasury in San Salvador. See Valle (1821) in Marta Casaus Arzti, Guatemala: Linaje y Racismo (San Jose, CR: FLACSO, 1992), pp. 319-324. The Amigo de la Patria newspaper of Guatemala City reported the list o f employees in the tobacco offices in early 1821. Men who also served on Guatemala Citys town council included the director general, Spaniard Jose Velasco; scribe Domingo Estrada; adviser Vicente Pielago ,fie l de alamacenes in San Salvador, Spaniard Rafael Ferrer; and interventor in Leon, Manuel Bolanos. Other Guatemalans included the factor in Quezaltenango, Miguel Palomo; Guatemala treasurer Juan Manuel Cerezo, and treasury official Justo Sorogastoa, Guatemala officials Francisco Santa Cruz and Manuel Cerezo and Gracias factor Manuel Ybarra. El Amigo de la Patria. Guatemala, 5 February 1821 58 For primary sources on the establishment o f the montepio, see AGI Guatemala 668, 689 and also 416 and 722. For recent studies see Jose Antonio Fernandez Molina, Colouring the World in Blue: The Indigo Boom and the Central American Market, 1750-1810, PhD, University of Texas at Austin, 1992; and Troy S. Floyd, The Guatemalan Merchants, the Government and the Provincianos, 1750-1800"
142
institution designed specifically to foster economic development outside the capital was to be headed by a member o f the capitaline elite, what hope could other institutions have of achieving real separation? However, Andersons allegation that the circuits o f Creole employment remained solely within the political district o f birth and uniquely in the lower tiers o f royal officialdom are belied by a series o f appointments o f ministers to the audiencia and governors to the colony from Peru, Santo Domingo and Mexico, as well as examples o f Guatemalan Creoles interest and success in sending children to Spain for an education and career.59 What can be asserted with certainty is that with new royal positions opening in the bureaucracy in the Americas and in Spain, Guatemalas elites expended no little energy in pursuing and securing both sinecure and working appointments. The success o f this strategy was such that by 1820 a list prepared by Honduran-bom Guatemala resident Jose Cecilio del Valle, author o f the regions first declaration o f independence, exposed how the trans-Atlantically intermarried Aycinena family and its branches had placed family members in bodies from the Council o f State in Madrid to intendancies in Mexico and the Kingdom o f Guatemala, to an oidor in
Hispanic American Historical Review 61(1961:1): 90-110. AGI Guatemala 431, 11 August 1807, Nombramiento de Lie. Jose Mariano Jauregui, Director del Montepio del Anil. Jauregui replaced Juan Manuel Truxillo, first director o f this fund to bankroll the kingdoms indigo planters, on the latters death. 59 Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities (New York, 1983 [1991 rev.]). Among the nonGuatemalan Creole functionaries were: audiencia ministers Jacobo Villaurrutia (Santo Domingo), Francisco Camacho (Mexico); alcalde mayor Thomas Mollinedo y Villavicencio (Chile). Among the scions of the capital who made the pilgrimage to Spain were Jose de Aycinena, who served in the Consejo de Estado and Consejo de Indias from 1811, and Juan Nepomuceno Batres y Najera who served in the Napoleonic wars before becoming intendant o f Chiapas. Two brothers Batres y Munoz, Jose Antonio and Salvador, received the posts o f treasurer o f the real hacienda in Mexico and administrator of the alcabala in Guadalajara in the first decades o f the nineteenth century. See note 57 above for source.
143
Santa Fe de Bogota.60 If Guatemala Citys elite had lost direct control o f the system o f royal taxation through seats on the city council, indirectly it would recuperate authority by assuming positions in the new institutions. What the 1820 list also shows, however, is that the availability o f Crownappointed positions did not reduce interest in municipal office-holding. Almost half o f the non-ecclesiastical positions were filled by men who served in both types o f position (19 out of 48). Twelve men were brothers o f members o f the cabildo, indicating that families opted to keep their positions in city government while expanding into other positions as they became available.6 1 In fact, the new positions simply provided new outlets for elite families o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala to participate in politics and government. The city councils o f Central America experienced an unprecedented revival in the eighteenth century, despite the intrusion o f competing institutions like the royal fiscal authorities and even a local institute, the Consulado de Comercio, or merchants guild. For, despite the apparent desire o f the Crown to break the control o f municipal economic power with the creation of an official ministry of finance, there was a simultaneous move to shore up and increase local government for Spaniards and other communities in the desire to
60 The list originally appeared as an annex to issue No. 3 of Valles newspaper, El Amigo de la Patria, in 1820, and has been reprinted several times, most recently in Casaus Arzu, Guatemala: Linajey Racismo pp. 319-324. Among the families in the network are the Batres, Najera, Beltranena, Arrivillaga, Asturias, Palomo, Montufar, Manrrique, Larrazabal, Larrave, and Letona. Although this discussion centers on political and financial jobs, the list also includes military appointments o f the clan, indicating that this relatively new set o f positions also became important. Jose de Aycinenas second wife was Maria Josefa Amalia de Sajonia, a Spanish noblewoman. See Casaus Arzu, Guatemala: Linajey Racismo, Diag.6., p. 7. 61 The nineteen men with both municipal and crown positions were from the Aycinena, Beltranena, Barrutia, Najera, Batres, Saravia, Pavon, Palomo, Montufar, Anivillaga, Micheo, Barrio, Manrrique, Pacheco and Echevem'a families. Casaus Arzu, Guatemala: Linajey Racismo, pp. 319-324.
144
ensure that some government penetrated even to the farthest reaches o f the Kingdom. City Growth in the Era of Reforms If the seventeenth century had been marked by a ruralization in which both Spaniards and castas took to the countryside in a time o f economic decline, the eighteenth century marked the return o f urbanization, or a second municipal conquest. Even before the intendancy reforms were implemented, the interest o f the Bourbon reformers in increasing government and royal influence in the countryside was to support the creation o f new towns not only for Spaniards but for the other communities o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala as well. Unlike the conquest municipalities, the mature Creole towns that incorporated required royal approval that came after establishing residence, not before. Such incorporations generally represented the consolidation o f a Spanish community that viewed city status as a means to increase political clout to match a growing economic importance. The goal was no longer to erect a city-province out o f a huge unconquered territory, but to slice a piece o f such a territory so Spaniards living outside the termino could have access to self-government and the human and territorial resources it provided. When enough residents o f growing or prosperous settlements wished to increase their say in political life, they sought villa status through the only available mechanism, authorization from Spain. Such petitions were rare. Only one such town incorporated in the eighteenth century. In the 1760s, prominent vecinos o f the real minas of Tegucigalpa, the thriving Spanish commercial center at the heart o f Central Americas silver producing zone, wanted to increase political clout in the 40-league alcaldia mayor
145
to have secure access to Indian and mulatto labor for the mines and to food supplies produced in the region. To achieve this control, Tegucigalpas vecinos hired a representative in Madrid, who successfully petitioned the Crown for the real minas to become a villa. Tegucigalpas 1000 silver peso donation to the royal treasury surely was o f substantial help to the cause, as well as the vecinos offer to build the city hall and to contribute an additional 3000 pesos to the new towns coffers.62 Although Tegucigalpa was the only Spanish villa to incorporate in the eighteenth century Kingdom o f Guatemala, this town was part o f a process o f municipal revival that affected the entire isthmus. As the economy recovered in the eighteenth century, in part due to the increasing external market for the indigo crops of San Salvador, so too did the Bourbon monarchs encourage a rebirth o f city government in conquest-era towns that had been wholly or partially abandoned, or whose residents had shown little interest in holding municipal office. Local residents were eager to participate as trade revived, Spaniards moved back into their cities and once again required authorities to police and govern urban centers and rural hinterlands. Twice before 1750, Sonsonate fought to reestablish a cabildo that had quietly ceased to exist in the late 1600s, while the district governor terrorized the town, refusing to let the council meet or hold elections. From each sides accusations o f the other, it seems clear that access to a revived Peruvian trade and Indian labor for indigo obrajes influenced both. After receiving support from Crown, captain general, and audience, the merchants and
62 AGI Guatemala 628, Real Cedula 17 July 1768, Madrid.
146
hacendados leading the effort formed a council briefly in the 1740s, but only managed to make the revival permanent in \115.63 By the last third o f the eighteenth century, as in the cases o f Cartago in Costa Rica in 1778, Ciudad Real in the 1780s, and Comayagua in 1787, Spanish governors more frequently nurtured and cajoled residents to revive municipal politics to deal with pressing sanitary, provisioning and defense issues.64 In a more unusual instance, which underlines the Spanish association o f Spanish cities with good government, even the captain general himself coordinated the resurrection o f the strategic port of Truxillo on the Honduran coast. He repopulated this bulwark o f defense against English military activities and commercial inroads on the Kingdoms economy with Canary Islanders and Galician immigrants in 1789.65 The Bourbons also recognized that the cohabitation o f the kingdoms different populations that characterized post-conquest towns required new solutions. When Spaniards had ignored royal orders not to live in Indian towns in the sixteenth century, governors and king indignantly ordered the ouster o f these illicit settlers. However, by the eighteenth century, such cohabitation was accepted in practice, as the censuses taken
63 For the 1723-1733 fight to reestablish the cabildo. including the royal decree o f 22 February1734, see AGI Guatemala 507. For the six titles o f regidores issued between 1740 and 1780, see AGI Guatemala 446. Sonsonates cabildo had ceased to exist in 1686 when the towns vecinos stopped purchasing regimientos. In the 1740s, the council functioned briefly. A second revival began in the 1760s, and the city government became fully functional after a sale of 4 regimientos in 1775 to Manuel Diez Clemente, Manuel Carrera , Francisco Guevara y Dongo, Jose Antonio Cicilia y Montoya. 64 For Comayagua, see the 25 May 1807 letter o f the cabildo, confirming that the interim intendant, Norberto Serrano Polo, had been instrumental in reviving the city, whose cabildo had not met for 60 years. AGI Guatemala 534. I have only found one reference to a late Bourbon governor, Domingo Carbello o f Nicaragua, who, resentful of cabildo interference with his running of the finances apparently tried to extinguish all four councils in the province. For a reference to this battle, in the context o f the city of Granadas protest o f loss of territory in the 1780s, see AGI Guatemala 572. 65 AGI Guatemala 453, f. 2. Captain General Gonzalez Saravia to Real Hacienda, 1810.
147
in the last third of the eighteenth century demonstrate in village after village (See Table 3.3).66 Furthermore, when enough Spaniards and creoles moved into sufficiently important Indian economic centers, the Crown was prepared to grant Spanish municipal status for the town, or at least the part that was Spaniard- and Creole-controlled. Without eradicating the Indian justices established by earlier laws, the Crown could and did authorize a full municipal political system to accommodate the Spanish and ladino communities. This happened at least three times in the Kingdom o f Guatemala. The
66 Bemabe Fernandez Hernandez, El Reino de Guatemala, 1801-1811, p. 259, writes that around 1800 there were no less than 700 poblaciones or aldeas in which the different castes lived together. For the archdiocese o f Guatemala (Guatemala and El Salvador), see population data collected by archbishop Cortes y Larraz in the 1760s, in Jesus Maria Garcia Anoveros, ed., Poblacion y estado sociorreligioso de la diocesis de Guatemala en el ultimo tercio del siglo X V lll (Guatemala: Editorial Universitaria, 1991), pp. 193-210. Honduras 1801 matricula, by family (AGI Guatemala 501), is published in Hector M. Leyva, Documentos Coloniales de Honduras, Doc. 45, pp. 272-289. See also Adriaan Van Oss, The Autarkic Colonial Cities of Central America in Robert J. Ross and Gerard J. Telkamp, eds., Colonial Cities: essays on urbanism in a colonial context (Boston: M Nijoflf, 1985). Table 2, p. 43 and Juarros, Compendio, passim.
148
Table 3J: Population & Racial Composition of Selected Cities & Towns Town Quesaltenango Santa Ana Cartago* Truxillo Santiago (1750s) San Salvador San Miguel San Vicente Sonsonate Ahuachapan Leon Granada Villa Vieja (CR) Comayagua (by families) Espafioles 464 338 632 80-100 6616 614 239 218 441 164 1061 863 1848 76 Ladinos 6000 3417 6026 25041 10,860 5300 3869* 2795 1383 5740 4765 872* 185 2500 144 1695 Mulattos 5536 -2500 1679 300 ** Indios 5000 Source Juarros, 42 Juarros, 21 Juarros, 38 AGI Guate. 629 Lutz, 110 Juarros, 263 Juarros, 23 Juarros, 22 Juarros, 19 Juarros, 20 Juarros, 34 Juarros, 35 Juarros, 37 AGI Guatemala 501
6700 585
626* 910* 4807* 144 498 & 218 almas single 1407 1050 & AGI Guate. 501 Tegucigalpa (by 86 1801 Matricula 563 sin. almas families) * Denotes use o f term mestizos instead o f ladinos or pardo" rather than mulato. ** Denotes use o f term negro."
pueblo o f Rivas, in the district o f Nicaragua, achieved the privilege o f autonomy when it became a villa in 1783.67 The process repeated in 1805 in Quezaltenango, a highland Guatemalan trading and agricultural center, and again in 1807 in indigo-producing Santa Ana, of the alcaldia mayor o f San Salvador.68 All three pueblos received the right to have Spanish town councils, with several aldermen and two mayors. The acceptance of a dual system o f governance was the first step in integrating the diverse communities of each town and city.
67 Ricardo Magdaleno, Titulos de Indias (en el archivo de Simancas) (Valladolid: Archivo General de Simancas, 1954).
149
Not all cases, however, were successful. In some instances, the problem o f mixed communities spawned similar requests by Spaniards and Creoles for their own city governments but failed to achieve approval because o f local resistance to the encroachment o f non-Indians on what had been founded as Indian settlements. For example, in 1783 the justicia, principalesy comun del pueblo o f Santa Luia Sacatecoluca in the alcaldia mayor of San Salvador opposed the plan o f the 49 Spanish families living in their village to create a villa in their quatales y platanos y el pueblo del Lugar, which consisted o f 686 mulatto and 215 Indian families. The threat the opponents to the villa held out to Spanish authorities was the risk that their children would wander dispersed, that is, no longer live in a city, should the Spanish vecinos plan go through. The representative o f the Spanish families pointed ought that they sought not just the title o f villa, but local government the creation o f a city council with 10 regidores. In return for the honor, the Spaniards would contribute 1000 pesos to the Crown, construct a new church for a separate ladino and Spanish parish, fund the construction of a city hall and jail, and pay for any Indian lands that would need to be purchased to make up the new villa's communal property. Despite these generous terms, the Crown did not accept the offer. The proposal and opposition, however, indicate the dividing lines among increasingly ethnically mixed residents o f Central America's towns, and the growing competition to govern them.69
68 Juarros, Compendio, p. 234. 69 AGCA A 1.44, Legajo 3 Expediente 21, ff. 8-9v, 94-v. The Spaniards also pointed out that the town was 18 leagues from San Salvador, whose alcaldes ordinarios extended their jurisdiction to it.
150
Erection o f new villas located in former pueblos, which carved their new jurisdictions from the alcaldias mayores or corregimientos they had depended on, did not reduce the official jurisdictions of pre-existing cities. Their creation, then, represented an extension o f local government at the expense o f externally-appointed officials. The vecinos o f Sacatecoluca pointed out, for example, that a city council would end the need for the San Salvador governor to name a subdelegado to work in Sacatecoluca.70 On balance, the eighteenth century demonstrated the permanency o f the original conquest towns as sites o f Spanish residence and power in the Kingdom o f Guatemala. Economic and demographic growth spurred a municipal revival which, for the most part, confined itself to cities that already existed. Most were Spanish cities, like Sonsonate. Others represented increased Spanish and ladino residence in towns that had started as Indian villages. If, at the start o f the century, towns like Sonsonate had to struggle to overcome gubernatorial bias against the resurrection o f locally-selected local authorities, then by the close o f the century, the balance sheet tipped in the opposite direction. Bourbon agents from the captain general to the provincial governors aided, abbetted and cajoled local residents to take charge once again of the burdens, responsibilities and honors o f municipal government. It was not, it appears, that difficult to overcome resistance, despite incessant grumbling about the lack of remuneration. The municipal revival was not unique to Spanish communities. The press for more municipal organization affected the hundreds o f non-Spanish populations
70 AGCA A 1.44, Legajo 3, Expediente 21, ff. 8-9v.
151
o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala which could not claim to be ciudadesy villas de Espanoles. Indian Republic, Ladino and Mulatto Pueblo In the seventeenth century, the same process o f ruralization that had affected the Spanish Central Americans in response to economic contraction, compounded the numbers o f Indians scattered in the countryside or lived in pueblos de Indios that no longer recognized regional centers.71 This process was not unique to the Kingdom o f Guatemala. The mayor o f Cartago (New Granada) expressed his exasperation as he exhorted his district to hacer vecindad, or to keep a residence in the central community, because the King was not a King over fields and pastures but over towns.72 As the economy revived in the 1700s, producing needs for Indian labor and mulatto soldiers to fight increasing British incursions into the isthmus, Crown and captain general renewed the policy o f reduccion and sponsored religious and military missions against the numerous remaining independent Indian communities o f the Guatemalan Peten, Honduran interior, and Mosquito Coast o f Nicaragua and Honduras.73 Even in wellcontrolled areas, the work o f reduccion continued; as late as 1800, the Crown praised
Lyle N. McAlistair, Spain and Portugal in the New World, 1492-1700 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), p. 351. As historians revise their understanding of the seventeenth century, the phenomenon o f ruralization may also come under reconsideration. 2 Cited in McAlistair, Spain and Portugal, p. 349. 3 Several reports from the eighteenth century religious and military missions sent to bring these communities under Spanish rule have been published in the Boleiin del Archivo General de Guatemala. Vol. 1 and 5 (1935-6 and 1939-40).
152
the intendant o f Chiapas establishment o f the Indian town San Fernando de Guadalupe.74 Two centuries after the initial conquest, imperial agents still used the language o f municipal republicanism to justify forcing non-Spanish communities to establish or live in towns. However, the logic, which first had organized government for Spaniards and Indians, now applied to new types o f vassals o f Spain, the ladino and mulatto communities, scattered throughout the Kingdom. Governors like Juan de Rivera y Perez o f the alcaldia mayor o f Escuintla and Guazacapan received such official encouragement to persevere as long as necessary to concentrate and relocate dispersed settlements into formal towns. Governor Rivera y Perez, after repeated efforts, overcame the objections of the ladino cattle ranchers o f the Valle de Jumay, and settled them into an official pueblo named Santa R osa.75 He also engineered the move o f the mulatto owners o f the estancia o f San Antonio de los Durasnos from their scattered fifty-year old settlements into a formal \iWage'(pueblo formal) called Y stapa.76 Royal officials supporting his efforts wrote that poblaciones, such as the governor intended to create, provided political and social (civil) life for their inhabitants to live in peace and justice, 77 and in Christian society and policia. 78 Living dispersed was to live contrary
4 AGI Guatemala 415, Consulta, No. 15, 29 November 1800. Recommendacion de meritos de intendente de las Cuentas Zayas, de Chiapa, por haber establecido un pueblo de indios. '5 AGI, Guatemala 446, Doc. 4, Ereccion de Cabildo en el pueblo de ladinos, de Jumay (Santa Rosa), Verapaz. Dictamen del Fiscal, 15 December 1764, Guatemala. 6 AHN Consejos 20953, Pieza 74, Reduccion a poblacion de los mulatos de Ystapa Dictamen del Fiscal Romana, 5 September 1765, f 12-v. 7 AGI, Guatemala 446, Doc. 4, Ereccion de Cabildo en el pueblo de ladinos, de Jumay (1764), Guatemala. Que el fin de las poblaciones es la vida politica y civil de sus havitadores en paz y justicia; y no haviendo quien la administre es presiso falte el orden y concierto y que vivan barbaramente
153
to all civilization (civilidad')... barbarously, in the wilderness (despoblado) with neither doctrina nor education.79 Juan de Ayssa, Intendant of Nicaragua, engaged in 1789 in negotiations with the Mosquito governor Carlos that included hosting a three-day reception for the Carib governors nuptials, hoped in his reciprocal visit to find means to build roads into the interior with the goal o f convincing the regions Carib, Indian and even Spaniard denizens to move into pueblos.90 If anything, two hundred years of contact in the Americas had merely reinforced a lesson thoroughly ingrained in Spaniards with their own reconquista. Like the Indian pueblos, these ladino and mulato townships could elect their own local mayor and councilmen. Equally, their local justice served the alcalde mayor's interests at least as much as those o f the grudging householders who preferred a dispersed and unaccountable lifestyle. The local mayors were responsible not just to the inhabitants, but also to the governor, in case o f robbery or conflicts with Indian pueblos over cattle pasturing. Once accessible, the new urban population also risked imposition o f taxes and forced sale of goods. City living also facilitated priestly control o f religious devotions and education, as well as Spanish ability to call up the mulatto militia company in times of need. That the Crown approved o f such increases in access to the populations o f its American territories is clear in the serviciosy meritos o f former
78 AHN, Consejos 20953, Pieza 74: Reduccion a poblacion de los mulatos de Ystapa (1764), ff. 5, 12. sociedad Christiana, y policia.Unidos en republica, se comuniquen "(my italics) 79 AHN, Consejos 20953. Pieza 74, Reduccion de los mulatos de Ystapa. Dictamen del Fiscal, 5 September 1765, f. 12-v. 80 AGI Guatemala 721, Juan de Ayssa to S.M., No. 8, 23 January 1789. Ayssa and his wife were the godparents (padrinos) o f Governor Carlos Antonio Castillo and his bride, and the wedding was presided over by the bishop of Nicaragua.
154
governors who highlighted their successful efforts to form new pueblos because they understood it would increase their chances to attain new posts.81 The late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century also produced a boom in new settlements o f blacks displaced from the Caribbean. When Guatemala recaptured the island o f Roatan from the British in 1797, it inherited a colony o f black caribs who had come there from the island o f Saint Vincent. The Guatemala-based merchant Juan Bautista Irisarry convinced Captain General Antonio Gonzalez Saravia to permit him to send some o f this group to form a new formal population in the Pacific port o f Acajutla, in the jurisdiction o f Sonsonate. Not only did these new inhabitants fish and serve as sailors, they also provided more adequate help in a port in which Yrisarry, who traded with Peru, wished to expand. Other black Caribbeans came to Guatemala as a result of adjustments to the Haitian revolution. In 1796, the captain general o f Havana had sent a large number o f French negros from Santo Domingo (Haiti) to Truxillo (Honduras). After providing them with a pension for several years, Gonzalez sent some o f this population to Nicaragua so they could be given land and become self-sufficient. The town of Matiare, between Grananda and Leon in Nicaragua, was founded with some of these families; others went to the Pacific port town o f Realejo in 1798. The rest o f this group remained to populate the outskirts o f Saladillo and Chapagua, next to Truxillo, a
8 1 AGI Guatemala 637, Residencia ofToribio Farrera, subdelegado del Partido de los Llanos, Ciudad Real, Chiapa, 1819. The Council warmly recalled Farreras father, Jose, who had successfully created several pueblos with cabildos from groups of dispersed settlers in various parts o f Chiapa in the 1790s, including one group o f Indian cimarrones. The council also welcomed initiatives to create new municipal authorities in towns that had become multiracial over time. Thus, the audience agreed with alcalde mayor Francisco Xavier Aguirre in 1802 and created alcaldes pedaneos ladinos with four regidores de aicxiliares, in the cabeceras of Gueguetenango and Totonicapan. The reform was later extended to all
155
port city on the bay o f Honduras, which had recently been repopulated with Spanish immigrants.82 Revival o f city life and government was an important development o f the Kingdom of Guatemala under the Bourbons, both for Spaniards and non-Spaniards. Thus, going into the nineteenth century and the political upheavals introduced by a crisis in the Spanish political system brought on by war with France, Napoleonic invasion and a constitutional monarchy, Central America looked increasingly urban. Not urban in the sense o f physical plant but urban in the sense o f people living in organizable areas. As the century progressed, a growing part o f the increasingly diverse population, lived organized according to Spanish standards. By the end o f the nineteenth century, more people accepted and used the Spanish system, with its Creole and Spanish governors and administrators, than ever before, and the importance for municipal organization for other communities, particularly the growing number o f ladinos, pardos and mulattos was clear. How was such growth consonant with the establishment o f the intendancies, which supposedly hoped to centralize official power in provincial capitals and remove it from the hands o f both Kingdom capitals and city authorities? This is the subject to be addressed in the next chapter.
populations that could support such a municipal structure. AGI Guatemala 624. Meritos y servicios, F. X. Aguirre. 82 AGI Guatemala 452. Antonio Gonzalez Saravia, 1804, Relacion de las providencias economicas y gubemativas dadas por el actual presidente de Guatemala en virtud del Real Orden de 6 de Mayo de 1792, para. 25-29.
156
Chapter 4 The Bourbon Town Council & the Spanish State: Uniformity and Regionalism: Part 2: The Intendancy Reforms, 1785-1807 The financial reforms o f the 1760s proved just the first step in the Caroline decision to unify, simplify and supervise government. By the mid 1780s, the Spanish Crown decided to consolidate the many different kinds o f jurisdiction which had grown organically in the Americas into a unique larger unit, the intendancy. A similar reform had been tried in Spain in 1718, consolidated after 1749, and then initiated piecemeal in the Americas, beginning with Cuba. Explicitly abandoning a jumbled mix o f alcaldias mayores, corregimientos, and gobiemos, the intendancy was to be comprised of equal and uniform sub-delegations, or districts (partidos ).* As with other districts of Spanish America, the Crown had gathered extensive data from Central American governors, town councils and other leading members o f society in the 1740s and 1760s, before determining the new districts.2 In essence, the political intendancy reforms were just as economic as the overhaul of the tax and financial bureaucracy o f the 1760s and 1770s, and derived from
1Ordenanza de Nueva Espana, 1786, Art 9, in Gisela Morazzani de Perez Enciso, Las ordenanzas de intendentes de Indias (Cuadro para su estudio) (Caracas, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Facultad de Derecho, 1972), pp. 66, 50. para que asi se uniforme desde luego el gobiemo de todas las provincias y se evita la confusion q siempre causa la diversidad de jurisdicciones y ministros and mi soberana voluntad es.... igualar enteramente la condicion de todos mis vasallos de Nueva Espafia. Article 1 states that las [Provincias] que en la actualidad se titulaban Provincias con la denominacion de Partidos y conservando estos el nombre que tienen aquellas. 2 In Central America, several o f the relaciones o f 1743 survive, and have been used as the basis for detailed analysis. See for example Maria de los Angeles Chaverri Mora, La Alcaldia mayor de Tegucigalpa en la Relacion Geografica de Don Baltasar Ortiz de Letona, III Congreso Centroamericano de Historia, San Jose, Costa Rica, July 1996. Chaverri uses the 1743 report o f alcalde mayor Pedro Ortiz
157
them. The intendancies were established around the areas of the cajas reales, and the intendant would live in the capital that had been designated the fiscal center. Within each territory, however, the intendants authority was extensive, to such a point that it paralleled that of the viceroy or captain generals role in each reino. As had been the case in 1718 Spain, the intendant exercised ultimate responsibility in four areas: justice, security (policia ), finance, and defense. On paper, the intendant often exercised the vice-patronato, or authority over the church, approving ecclesiastical appointments.3 In other words, the authority of the intendente was equivalent to that o f a captain general but extended not to an autonomous district but to a fairly extensive province. Generally a military man, the intendant had an advisor schooled in the law, the asesor letrado, to help him in his administrative and judicial functions. In theory, the only regions that might escape integration within an intendancy were key military frontier outposts. As in the case of the earlier Bourbon expansion of the bureaucracy, these new posts provided new opportunities for local elites. Although the first asesores letrados were Spanish lawyers, within a decade many came from the ranks o f the Kingdom of Guatemalas growing number of lawyers.4
de Letona. Ortiz de Letona was also an important regidor in Guatemala City. The reports in BAGG for 1760s. 3 Surprisingly, Spains 1749 recognition that this plethora of powers limitd the intendants efficacy and subsequent reduction o f the authority, was not implemented in the Americas. For a discussion, see John Lynch, Bourbon Spain, / 700-/808 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989),pp. 103-106, 168-170. Lynch also notes the parallel reduction o f viceroys and creation of captaincies general throughout Spain, again diffusing and uniforming political power and territorialization. 4 The first asesores were all Spanish: Pedro Luque (Chiapas); Diego Pilona (Nicaragua); Antonio Maria Aguilar (San Salvador), and Jose Mariano Valero (Comayagua). AGI Guatemala 690. Central American asesores included Juan Miguel Bustamante (Guatemala), o f Nicaragua in 1798 and of San Salvador in 1814; Antonio Isidro Palomo (Guatemala) o f San Salvador (1799-), and Manuel Beltranena y Llano (Guatemala) o f Nicaragua (1816-21). AGN, Caja 3, Seccion Antigua, Correspondencia Oficial, 18131818, No. 11.; AGI Indiferente 109, KOG Emn 528-9.
158
Many o f the modem republics o f Latin America take their names and jurisdictions from these consolidated regions. In Central America, in the course o f 1785-1787, three royal orders mandated establishment o f four intendancies.5 Acting on royal orders which represented the culmination o f a decade o f political deliberation, Captain General Jose de Estacheria agglomerated many o f the 25 corregimientos, alcaldias mayores and gobemaciones into four intendancies: Chiapas, Comayagua (Honduras), San Salvador (El Salvador) and Nicaragua. Costa Rica continued as a governorship (see Table 4.1).
5 AGCA A1.40, Leg 4797, fT6-12. Letter of 15 August 1784, Archbishop to Charles III. The letter requested the establishment o f the regime o f intendancies in Guatemala. Also, Hector H. Samayoa Guevara, Implantation del Regimen de Intendentias en el Reino de Guatemala (Guatemala: Ministerio de Educacion Piiblica, 1960), p. 57.
159
Table 4.1: Kingdom of Guatemala in the 8* C.: Before & After Intendancies of 1787
City Villa Pueblo Provinces 1778 1796 1 1 56 Intendencia de Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real (P) (AM) incorporates Tuxtla & Soconusco Soconusco (P) (Gbr) 20 0 0 94 Tuxda (P) (AM) 3 1 3 4 28 Intendencia de Leon: Leon (P) (Gbr y Cmd) incorporates Subtiava, Realejo, Matagalpa, Nicoya Nicoya (C) (C) 0 0 1 0 5 Subtiava o Quezaltepeque 0 (C) Realejo (C) 0 1 3 Matagalpa (C) 0 0 12 10 Costa Rica (P) (Gbr) 1 3 Govierno De Costarrica 94 Honduras (P) (Gbr) 3 1 Intendencia de Comayagua: incorporates AM Tegucigalpa 0 2 23 Tegucigalpa (P) (AM) 48 Amatitlan y Sacat. (AM) 1 2 AM Sacatepeques y Antigua Guatemala Atitan o Solola (P) (AM) 0 0 31 AM Solola 0 1 21 AM Chimaltenango Chimaltenango (AM) 30 0 Corregimiento Chiquimula y Chiquimula y Zacapa (P) 0 Zacapa (C) Escuintla (P) (AM) 0 1 33 AM Escuinda Sonsonate (P) (AM) 0 1 21 AM Sonsonate Provinces Ayuntamientos 1805 Ciudad Real
Granada, Leon, Rivas, Esteli, Nva. Segovia, Nicaragua,
Cartago Comayagua, Truxillo
Tegucigalpa
Sonsonate
160
Table 4.1: Kingdom of Guatemala In the 18* C.: Before & After Intendancies of 1787 (continued)
Ayuntamientos City Villa Pueblo Provinces 1778 1796 1805 San Antonio Such. (P) 0 0 19 AM Suchitepequez (*) (AM) CorTegimiento Quezaltenango (P) 0 0 25 Quesaltenango Totonicapan (P) (AM) 0 0 48 AM Totonicapan Verapaz (P) (AM) 1 0 14 AM Verapaz 4 S Salvador (P) (AM) 121 Intendencia de San Salvador San Salvador, San 2 Vicente, San Miguel Peten (Presidio) 0 0 9 Castillo del Peten (Castellano) Golfo (presidio) (Cabo Fueite de S Carlos Principal) 0 Rio Tinto (?same) San Juan (Castillo) 0 0 Guatemala Nueva Guatemala 0 0 0 (Nueva Guatemala**) Antigua Guatemala 0 0 0 (part o f AM Sacatepequez) Antigua Omoa (Gobemador) 0 0 0 Omoa Truxillo Cabo de Gracias Roatan Gbr - Gobierao C = Corregimiento AM - Alcaldia Mayor P = Provincia * Suchitepequez not included here; in Juarros, 1800. Believe oversight ** Guatemala City not included because it was the point o f departure for the mails. Provinces
Sources: 1778: Anonymous, Noticias del Reyno de Guatemala en \778;Anales de la Acadmia de Geografia e Historia de Guatemala XLIV (1990), pp. 251-252; 1796: AGCA A1.25 Leg. 2603, Exp. 21389; 1805: Juarros, Compendio, pp. 56, 233. The first intendancy, that o f San Salvador, covered the jurisdiction o f the alcaldia mayor o f San Salvador over the municipal districts o f San Salvador, San Miguel, and San Vicente while raising the political status o f this important indigo-producing region from one o f 12 alcaldias mayores to one o f four intendancies. San Salvadors elevation without any alteration of the political jurisdiction was unique in Central America.6
6 The decision to increase San Salvador's political status rather than to annex it to nearby provinces might well have had its roots in a 1774 report by ihea-alcalde mayor Francisco Antonio de Aldama y Guevara, who suggested dividing the district in two. Aldama reported on his inability to enforce his jurisdiction in the extended region. On the one hand, the ayuntamiento o f San Miguel claimed jurisdiction over its
161
The other three intendancies, whose establishment followed directly on the heels o f that o f San Salvador, consolidated several smaller provinces into one larger unit. Before the recommendation o f San Salvadors intendant, Josef Ortiz, to establish an intendancy in the neighboring jurisdiction o f Comayagua to address a drastic mining crisis could reach Spain,7 two more cedulas had already defined the intendancies of Ciudad Real (20 September 1786), as well as of Comayagua and Leon (23 December 1786). These new provinces named the intendancies after their capital cities, as provided for in article I of the new Ordenanza de Intendentes for use in New Spain which the king separately ordered to be applied in Guatemala.8 The territories o f all three o f these jurisdictions derived from already-established bishoprics and their circuits o f parishes, but represented a new secular consolidation with important political and fiscal consequences. Chiapas incorporated the two alcaldias mayores o f Tuxtla and
entire partido, of over 40 leagues, and not the S leagues adjudicated to it by the Laws o f the Indies. On the other, the alcalde mayor did not believe he could appropriately govern the densely populated territory o f 80 leagues by 40 leagues, and suggested putting five meritorious subjects to administer Royal Justice, one each in San Salvador, San Miguel, San Vicente, Santa Ana, and the Parish o f Osicalca. AGI Guatemala 621. Carta Francisco Aldama a la Audiencia de Guatemala, June 24, 1774. The fiscal of the Council of the Indies in 1776 asked for a report from the audience, Guatemala City and the archbishop. In 1779, the audience seconded Aldama's recommendation, proposing a tri-patite division o f the alcaldia mayor. They found that the current governor, Manuel Fadrique y Goyena, son-in-law o f the previous governor Cristobal de Galvez, and the three city councils o f the region opposed the division for particularist reasons, that is, the fear o f loss of their extensive control o f justice and repartimiento. This intendancy operated in its first year under the Instruction written for Buenos Aires (1782). 7 AGI Guatemala 690. Transcription o f letter o f Intendant Josef Ortiz to Jose de Galvez, Marques de Sonora, CG, 28 July 1786, ff. 9-v, 13v-5. In 1787, the marginal note comments that Comayagua already had an intendancy,under the government of Don Juan Nepomuceno de Quesada. (28 Dec 1786). 8 Ordenanzas 1786, Art.. Text in Morazzani, Las ordenanzas de intendentes, p. 50. For Comayagua and Leon, the king instructed Captain General Galvez to apply the new Ordenanza de Intendentes written for New Spain (Mexico). The following year, the Council of the Indies expanded this instruction to include all four Central American intendancies.
162
Soconusco. Leon assumed control over four corregimientos.9 And Comayagua, on the recommendation of the first intendant, was allowed to assume authority over the alcaldia mayor of Tegucigalpa.10 In 1788, the 25 political jurisdictions had indeed been reduced. Unfortunately for those who would find in the result the outlines o f five national states, the reduction was not to four intendances and two govemorates but something more diffuse: fifteen political jurisdictions. In addition to the intendancies o f Comayagua, Chiapas, Nicaragua and San Salvador and the govemorate o f Costa Rica, the Kingdom o f Guatemala continued to have the uncentralized region of what would mostly become the state o f Guatemala. This region included, in addition to the jurisdiction o f the capital city, the important alcaldias mayores and corregimientos o f Totonicapan, Solola, Chimaltenango, Quezaltenango, Escuintla, Sacatepequez, Chiquimula, Sonsonate, Suchitepequez and Verapaz.11 O f these jurisdictions, one (Sonsonate) would dissociate from the country o f Guatemala established in 1823, to join that of El Salvador. Also not included in the intendancies were the military commandancies o f Omoa and Trujillo, on the Caribbean coast, and o f the Peten, in Guatemalas northern reaches. Since most o f the official trade of the colony was conducted through the Caribbean ports, the non-inclusion o f the garrisons protecting those ports was an important omission. Although by 1821 Ferdinand VII had decided to erect an
9 AGI Guatemala 690. Letter No. 7, President and Junta Superior de Hacineda o f Guatemala to Marques of Sonora, 14 August 1787. The royal order naming the first intendant o f Nicaragua, Juan de Ayssa, told him to incorporate the corregimientos o f Subtiava, Matagalpa and Nicoya.
163
intendancy for the Guatemalan districts, and was evaluating nominees for the position o f intendant, independence cut short the official consolidation.12 In the meantime, these ten provinces continued to report directly to the colonys supreme judicial, military, economic and political authority, the captain general, who served as a super-intendant, and the audiencia. In 1803, a revised Ordenanza, never implemented, reaffirmed the existence o f the four intendancies, as well as the direct administration by the audiencia o f the district surrounding Asuncion.1 3
1 0 AGI 423. RC, 24 July 1791. San Pedro Sula was also added to the intendancy at this time. The order explicitly included all territory within the bishopric o f Comayagua in the intendancy, with the exception o f the fortress o f Omoa which remained under military rule and reported directly to the kingdom capital. 1 1 Samayoa Guevara, Implantation del Regimen de Intendencias, p. 61. 1 2 AGI Guatemala 690. Among those under consideration for the post were Jose Cecilio del Valle, a Honduran bureaucrat who edited a newspaper, El Amigo de la Patria (1820-1821) and authored the September 15 1821 declaration of indpendence and was one of Central Americas most respected thinkers. The nomination o f November 1820 went to Jose Alexo Alegria, a financial officer in Mexico, but independence kept the decision from being implemented. Most o f the other applicants had had long and distinguished careers as civil servants and lawyers in Guatemala. Native-born applicants included lawyers Antonio Isidro Palomo y Manrrique, Manuel Jose Pavon y Munoz, and Maria Antonio Rivas. There were also peninsulares lawyer Bartolome Vicente Pielago (o f Santander), Miguel Gonzalez Saravia, intendant of Nicaragua and son o f a former Captain General (Antonio Gonzalez Saravia, 18011811), and civil servant Jose Velasco, who had spent 43 years as a royal official in Guatemala, including as director o f the tobacco monopoly. The final applicant, Dr. Manuel Talavera was a native o f Coro (Venezuela) who had come to Guatemala when his uncle Sebastian Talavera had been named to the audiencia there (1786-1792). 1 3 Ordenanzas Generales de Intendentes, 1803, Art. 6, Morazzani, Las ordenanzas de intendentes de Indias, p. 54.
164
Figure 12: Map of the Kingdom of Guatemala, ca. 1786
8 0/
VJ
<
Source: Mario Rodriguez, The Cadiz Experiment in Central America, pp. 72-3 (Courtesy of Mario Rodriguez).
165
Figure 13: Chains of Political Authority (Secular), Kingdom o f Guatemala

Preside nUCO Atadaencre
S q b d ib p ltf or T tn itid e t. da O br.
While the establishment o f intendancies reduced the number of provinces within the Kingdom o f Guatemala by slightly less than half, the result was decentralization of government rather than centralization. Instead o f one head, the captain general, the kingdom in effect had five. Or, to use the metaphor o f Chapter I , instead o f a twotiered pyramid o f political and economic authority, there were five pyramids, four of equal size and one central pyramid with the authority to channel irresolvable disputes to Spain for resolution. Within each intendancy, the intendant named subdelegates (confirmed by the king) in the principal Spanish and Indian cabeceras o f what had formerly been corregimientos and alcaldes mayores. For these officials, the intendant served as distant arbiter of justice and administration in the same way that the audiencia and captain general had previously done for the first type o f governor. As in the case of the financial officials, the position o f subdelegado quickly became a sinecure for local elites.1 4 While the most delicate or complicated cases would still be referred by the
1 4 For a series o f royal appointments o f subdelegados o f Central America, see AGI Guatemala 428-431. Among the confirmations was that of Mariano Prado (1805) as subdelegado o f Sensuntepeque (El Salvador). Prado was then a young man and recent law graduate o f the universities of Leon, Nicaragua and Guatemala who later would serve on the town council of San Vicente, and after independence
166
intendant and his advisors to the kingdom capital for resolution, for the most part the new intendancies were gubematorially self-sufficient, with their own financial offices and (cajas), their own military organizations, their own court and appeals systems, and their own religious and local administrations. The fact that all the Central American intendancies had access, on either Atlantic or Pacific coasts, to important ports revived by 1770s legislation that opened trade among the Americas as well as o f foreign imports, meant that the center could often conveniently be ignored if local interests found such to be to their benefit. If, in theory, the old viceregal and captaincy general capitals were meant to find themselves relieved o f the burdens o f low-level administration to concentrate on weightier matters more appropriate to their station, becoming central authority to a series o f mid-level districts, in fact, absolute decentralization quickly materialized. In the early years o f intendancies in the Americas, the king apparently felt pressure from his highest officials to reassure them o f their continuing importance. From 1783, the king had revised the Ordenanzas o f Buenos Aires to have viceroys confirm the appointments o f Intendants. A royal decree o f 1788 in essence acknowledged the Ordenanzas sidelining o f the captain general and reconfirmed the utility o f the position, by assigning to him the role o f superintendente, or supervisor o f the entire kingdoms fiscal system.1 5
become a statesman and president. Among the other pretendants to the job were Gabriel Fuentes, a hacendado of the same district, recommended by the asesor, and Jose Munoz, the secretary o f the San Vicente town council, whose conduct apparently left much to be desired. 1 5 RO 5 August 1783 and RO 9 May 1788, Morazzani, Las ordenanzas de intendentes de Indias, p. 54.
167
In this sense, the intendancies did serve as the precursors to Central Americas post-independence states, because residents learned to address concerns first to the local intendant, and not the audiencia or captain general in the kingdom capital. However, just as the intendancies consolidated a regional unity against a distant capital, they also created or nourished internal divisions through an important yet unheralded innovation o f the intendancy: to group multiple Spanish cities and towns under one governor. This experience tended to confirm local rivalries rather than to foster alliances against the center. Thus, there are two ways to interpret the ceremonial implications o f San Salvadors recpetion o f their first intendant, Jose Ortiz, in 1786. The ayuntamiento of San Salvador on 29 May heard Ortiz oath and gave him official possession o f his jurisdiction.1 6 On the one hand, regional capitals now had access to the kind o f official who could demand for them favors and services that in the past Guatemala Citys unique relationship with the president had preserved as its particular bailiwick. On the other hand, the other cities in the districtin this case San Vicente and San Miguel thus took over the role of provincial second string, viewing the capital where the intendant resided, exchanged favors and interacted with residents as a source o f competition. The competition was closer to home, perhaps, but this did not reduce the complications that such competition would create.
16 AGI Guatemala 690, Letter o f Ayuntamiento o f San Salvador, 29 May 1787.
168
City Government and the Intendancy The intendancy reforms had a significant impact on city government, although not the reduction o f municipal importance and authority commonly asserted. Nor were the titanic clashes and rivalries among the dozen significant Spanish towns the only change in city influence. Certainly, with the establishment o f the intendancies, the cities and towns participated as only one element in a more elaborate government. Yet this had always been the case, as we saw in the previous chapter. If the posts of many traditional governors were abolished, the responsibilities o f city government were not directly compromised by the Ordenanza o f 1786, nor its more thorough revision in 1803.1 7 None o f Central Americas Spanish town councils was suppressed nor its personnel changed. Later legislation, such as a 1789 cedula on cemetery management, indicated that the king still considered city government an important branch o f his overseas state.1 8 Oversight o f municipal money management and judicial authority passed from the provinces governor to the intendant, with demands for stricter and more regular bookkeeping. However, no functions or tasks were assigned away from existing local authorities. In fact, in certain aspects municipal influence was enhanced.
1' See Morazzani, Las ordenanzas de intendentes de Indias for side-by-side comparison o f the Buenos Aires (1782), Nueva Espana (Mexico) (1786) and general (1803) Ordenanzas de Intendentes. This legal work has linle analysis of the content of each instruction, but includes an exhaustive and invaluable reference to complementary royal decrees and orders issued to supplement, correct or abrogate specific articles in the Ordenanzas. The full names o f what I call the Ordenanzas de Intendentes are: Real Ordenanza para el establecimiento e instruccion de Intendentes de Ejercito y Provincia en el Virreynato del Rio de la Plata, de 28 de enero de 1782; Real Ordenanza para el establecimiento e instruccion de Intendentes de Ejercito y Provincia en el Reino de Nueva Espana, de 4 de diciembre de 1786; and Ordenanza general para el gobierao e instruccion de Intendentes de Ejercito y Provincia, de 23 de septiembre de 1803. 1 8 AGCA 1.2.4 Real Cedula, 1789. Legajo 2245, Expediente 16218.
169
Certainly, in the last half of the eighteenth century, the number o f town councils that were activeand the evidence o f their activity and energydemonstrably increased. What was novel with the creation o f the intendancies, however, was that one intendant stood more directly between several cabildos and the captain general or audience. For the first time in colonial Central America, more than one town and its elites had to vie for the favor o f a single governor, and one who might not reside locally. Such reduction in influence was not well received, particularly in the case of silver-mining town Tegucigalpa, which had only achieved its official status in 1764 and ran a successful legal battle from 1799 to 1812 to recover the independence o f its alcaldia mayor}9 An alternate reality might have had local alliances form to combat the supposed inimical influence o f the distant capital city but such alliances did not form - or if they did, as we saw with the Salvadoran cities in the previous chapterthe alliances were specific to a particular issue and did not forge enduring relationships. While abolishing alcaldias mayores and corregimientos, the Ordenanzas de Intendentes applied in the Kingdom o f Guatemala between 1786 and 1821 had exactly the opposite intent with regard to local government. Instead o f disbanding city councils, it ordered the proliferation o f municipal government. Under the new regulation, existing alcaldes ordinarios of Spanish cities, towns and places (lugares) would keep their traditional authority in matters o f justice. In addition, the new law called for Spanish settlements without ayuntamientos to elect two alcaldes annually.
1 9 This fascinating struggle is well documented in AGI Guatemala 417, 496, 623, 649, and 845. See also Marvin Barahona, La alcaldia mayor de Tegucigalpa bajo el regimen de intendencias (Tegucigalpa: Institute Hondurefio de Antropologia e Historia, 1996).
170
The Ordenanza specifically stated that the new alcaldes would replace the lieutenants whom provincial governors had previously named to those towns formerly deprived o f a local government.20 Indian pueblos as well had their municipal organization reinforced, although Spanish authorities would still be represented by a judge (juez espanol) who would apparently serve the same functions as the former corregidor.21 In other words, there would be more local government rather than less. This approach, consonant with the earlier policies to extend official presence into the far reaches o f the countryside, once again promoted decentralization rather than unified districts. The problem with the municipal proliferation was that those who lost territorial control through the creation o f new autonomous districtsthe mayors o f the principal Spanish citiescould be expected to resist a diffusion of their authority. In theory, this increase of town government did not directly reduce the influence o f former cabeceras o f provinces, such as Tegucigalpa. Yet, as we shall see below, the Crowns desire for more government at the local level met some villages aspirations for autonomy from their district capitals and quietly (and not so quietly) put an end to the monstrous jurisdictions that had so exasperated the audiencia in the first half o f the eighteenth century.
20 Ordenanza de Nueva Espafia, 1786, Art 1 1 in Morazzani, Las ordenanzas de intendentes, pp. 68-69. 2 1 Ordenanza de Nueva Espana, 1786, Art 12-13., in Morazzani, Las ordenanzas de intendentes. pp. 74-77. Article 12 held that Indian towns that were cabeceras de partido would have a subdelegado and confirmed a 1782 decision that there would be no further repartimiento o f labor. Article 13 held that those pueblos that had, by law and ancient custom elected governors or mayors and the rest of the officers of republica as laws and ordinances permitted for their purely economic order, and to demand from the same naturales their tribute paid to mi soberania" would continue to do so; other towns would have their subdelegates name govemors-tax collectors (gobemadores cobradores). In all judicial cases, to avoid disturbances, appeals and uprisings a Spanish judge would preside.
171
The reduction o f city authority from 30-league districts to the casco o f their cities through municipal reproduction was consolidated through the extension of subdelegados to a degree not foreseen by the Ordenanzas. As clarified in Article 41 of the Ordenanza General of 1803, the cabecera of a former alcaldia mayor or corregimiento would receive a subdelegate (subdelegado de intendente), and thus retain its centrality to regional finance and justice in its traditional hinterland.22 In practice, however, subdelegates named by the new intendants proliferated in towns which had previously had lieutenant governors, reducing the status of those in the former provincial capitals to equivalency with the rest of the cabecerasP These establishment of these new justices, combined with that o f the mayors in the smaller towns o f each district, led to reduced sway by the previous provincial capital, and sometimes friction over jurisdiction. Certainly, by supporting the proliferation o f local governments and subdelegates beyond the traditional large town, the Ordenanza de Intendentes put one
22 En Iugar de los corregidores y alcaldes mayores que en todas partes han de extinguirse y en los propios pueblos que antes eran cabeceras de la provincia y lo deben ahora ser de partido, se pondran subdelegados, que corao aquellos jueces administren justicia y cumplan las mismas obligaciones y cargas que en su distrito les eran peculiares y les estaban anexas, observando la instruccion particular que de ellas se les da y va unida a esta Ordenanza, para facilitarles mas el desempeno de su ministerio y precaver dudas y disputas con motivo de su subordinacion y dependencia de los intendentes. See Ordenanza de Nueva Espana, 1786, Art. 41, in Morazzani, Las ordenanzas de intendentes, pp. 69-70. 23 Sketchy information indicates that subdelegados nominees were drawn both from local elites but also from Spaniards, many o f whom presumably came to the Americas for other reasons and hoped to stay. For example, in 1808 the Presidents nomination of Manuel Mantillas as subdelegate in Segovia, Nicaragua was approved. Mantillas was a retired captain o f militias, former syndic, mayor o f Leon, and consular deputy. He had replaced Antonio de Arce, a military man who had been a member o f Nicaraguas militas, but o f Spanish provenance. AGI Guatemala 431, Aprobacion de 18 November 1808, of recommendation o f 18 April 1808, Letter 326, Captain General Antonio Gonzalez Saravia. It would take a rigorous study of nominations in different regions over the course of the intendancies (1786-1821) to confirm which type o f vassal was preferred for the different types of district. My hunch would be that locals filled the less militarily important posts, and those most important to city economies.
172
more nail in the coffin of the bigger towns pretensions to exercise jurisdiction in their old ten-, twenty- or thirty-league districts. Perhaps the lack o f direct intention to reduce the municipal hinterlands to circumscribed areas contiguous to city centers promoted the success o f this aspect of the intendancy reforms.24 A full-frontal assault on individual city jurisdictionsthe monstrous jurisdictions bewailed by the audiencia in the 1770s in the alcaldia mayor o f San Salvadorwould have mobilized the major towns and cities o f the isthmus to respond directly. This indirect assault on customary privilege and jurisdiction, following on the heels of the 1785-1788 stripping o f the Granada (Nicaragua) of its traditional hinterland, apparently met with little concerted resistance.25 If the unexpected dividends of the provisions o f the intendancy were so effective in Central America, how did the official provisions to improve city government fare? The Ordenanza demanded greater transparency and oversight in municipal finances in line with Bourbon interest in efficiency and uniformity. However, the city council was expected to enact its own reforms, and then report regularly to higher officials. One regulation created the junta municipal, to be made up o f the first alcalde ordinario, two aldermen (regidores), and the sindico, to oversee the collection and spending o f town finances and to provide a new series o f annual reports to the intendant on the sources
24 Robert W. Patch, The Bourbon Reforms, City Councils, and the Struggle for Power in Yucatan, 17701796, in Jaime E. Rodriguez O., ed., Mexico in the Age o f Democratic Revolutions, 1750-1850. B oulder Lynn Rienner Publishers, 1994, p. 65. Patch has argued for Yucatan that this loss o f jurisdiction over territories and their Indian populations was the crucial change o f municipal authority in terms o f the intendancy reforms. 25 AGI Guatemala 572 contains the causa of the city of Granada, which lost 27 leagues o f jurisdiction between 1785 and 1788.
173
and amounts o f income and expenses o f each settlement.26 Each junta was to name a new collector o f municipal debts annually, to be paid 1l A % from the collected monies.27 This junta was also charged with ensuring that prices for foodstuffs were both fairly and reasonably set, and that auctions o f city lands or buildings (propios) were made public for thirty days prior to a sale or lease. The procedure was the same as that followed traditionally for sales o f council seats and o f city licenses such as that o f running the local cockfighting franchise (patio de gallos). It was inserted in article 37 with the specific intent to avoid leagues and monopolies that happen within and outside o f ayuntamientos in which regidores, their relatives and dependents (paniaguados) paid less than minimum value, and to replace such practices inimical to the royal treasury with disinterested administration o f justice.28 It is worth noting here that the council was not singled out for this type o f attempt to put an end to patronage and influence in local commerce. The new Spanish subdelegate in the pueblos cabeceras de meros indios received a similar abjuration in Article 44 .29 When the theory translated into practice, the cities o f Central America learned to turn this, as well as all other attempts at persistent government oversight, to their favor. After all, the junta municipal was made up of city council members; the reports would reflect local circumstances more than disinterested accounting. Furthermore, if a city did not voluntarily implement the measures o f the Ordenanzas, Crown and intendant
' 6 Ordenanza de Nueva Espana, 1786, Arts. 34-36, in Morazzani, Las ordenanzas de intendentes, pp. 9091. Although a RC o f 16 May 1573 ordered annual reports on municipal propios to be sent to the Council o f Indies, this regulation was not in effect in the 18lh century. See Recopilacion, Law 6, Book 4, Title 13. *' Ordenanza de Nueva Espana, 1786, Art 40, in Morazzani, Las ordenanzas de intendentes, p. 92.
174
faced an uphill battle enforcing them. Guatemala City successfully resisted changing its system of fiscal administration until 1801, when a royal decree insisted that it establish an ordinance o f propios y arbitrios (holdings and taxes), which would end abuses like aldermen receiving reimbursement from municipal funds for up to 100 pesos spent on festivities without being obliged to prepare or present a receipt. Three aldermen, including the second Marques o f Aycinena, who had been a fixture o f municipal government since the 1780s, and who as standard-bearer (alferez real) most frequently had occasion to seek reimbursement for ceremonial expenses, resigned rather than submit to strict accounting.30 In fact, with the death o f Charles HI in 1788, a mere three years after implementation o f the intendancy reforms, a notable reduction o f innovative zeal led to appointment o f less active and less confrontational officials to Central America, and a consequent reduction in actual interference in local finances. In that year, a royal decree abrogated one o f the articles o f the 1786 Ordenanzas, which required that the town council receive approval from the audience for investing small amounts o f its monies.3 1 Such official watering down o f unwelcome provisions was matched by local
28 Ordenanza de Nueva Espana, 1786, Art 37, in Morazzani, Las ordenanzas de intendentes, pp. 91-92. 29 Ordenanza de Nueva Espana, 1786, Art 44, in Morazzani, Las ordenanzas de intendentes, p. 94. 30 AGI Guatemala 624, Francisco Camacho, Instruccion Reservada, pp. 2-5; Fiscal Yanez to Minister of Gracia y Justicia, 21 June 1809.. The other two resignees were Manuel Pavon and Jose Antonio Batres, who immediately renounced their offices. The Tribunal de Real Hacineda, in face o f the citys obstinacy, commissioned a member o f the audience, Antonio Cardenas, to come up with a regulation. The recommended reduction in costs to meet fees, rather than the citys preffered method o f raising taxes, was not popular. Camacho, the oidor behind this control and an investigation to the citys long-term debt to the real hacienda o f half a million pesos, found himself run out of town by order o f the captain general a year later. The fiscal of the audiencia, Jose Yanez, in a report to the Crown on 21 June 1809 confirmed that Camachos strict fiscal regimen had been the start of the citys enmity towards Camacho. 31 AGCA Al.2.4 Leg. 4779, Exp. 41279, f. 10, RO 14 September 1788, Derogacion, Art. 6, 28 Ordenanza de Intendencia (Buenos Aires)
175
resistance to implementation. In 1808, the oidor in the capital responsible for coordinating the reports o f the accounts of propios and arbitrios o f the kingdom informed his successor that initial rigor had had the laudable effect o f getting the regions cities to prepare and its intendants to submit the reports. However, the single official in the accounting office in the capital had not reviewed these reports since 1794.32 This same official, Francisco Camacho, found himself railroaded out o f town in 1808, in large part because o f his efforts to get the Guatemala City cabildo to economize its funds and holdings.33 If the fiscal system under the intendancy increased supervision o f municipal spending more in theory than in practice, it did, however, foster a shift o f municipal funding. Under the Ordenanzas, city councilors learned to increase the municipal balance sheet, as they turned from reliance on propios alone to propios and arbitrios. Traditionally, Central American cities had collected most o f their income from rent on the city propios, or holdings, which included stalls in the central market;buildings leased to individuals and other government institutions; and ejidos, or common lands rented to city residents. A less frequently used income generator was the arbitrio, a royally approved local tax on goods bought and sold in the city. Rarely invoked in the Hapsburg years o f the colonial period, Central Americas town councils turned increasingly to the arbitrio as a source o f income after the intendancy reforms, with the
32 AGI Guatemala 624. Instruccion reservada, Francisco Camacho, pp. 9-10. 33 AGI Guatemala 624. Fiscal Yaiiez to Minister of Gracia y Justicia, 21 June 1809. Si el cavildo (sic) de Guatemala le aborrese es porque le dip reglamentos para...economisar (sic) sus fondos y propios. Yanez also pointed out that for over a half century the council owed the royal treasury around a half
176
encouragement o f the intendants and their staff, who planned to use the funds to improve city administration and pay some officials.34 This new form of taxation revived several failing treasuries, including those o f the capital, Ciudad Real in Chiapas, Comayagua in Honduras, and Sonsonate. The particular taxes approved by the Spanish Crown were often on items used by the general populace, such as panela (block sugar) and soap, and charged to small traders within a fifty-league radius. Although taxpayers often lived in the countryside, the taxes usually paid for services and buildings located in a district capital like the hospital in Guatemala City and the town halls and prisons in Comayagua and Sonsonate. The fiscal reach o f each city, then, continued to reach into and affect the countryside. Whatever the rural populations response to the new arbitrios, to which their produce constituted the principal contribution, it could not have been either ignorance or indifference. Although no tax could be imposed without the elaborate process o f approval first in Guatemala and subsequent ratification in Spain, the fact that the Crown was willing to countenance up to a fifty-league radius for collection in certain cases clearly allowed the principal cities o f the isthmus to maintain an extensive fiscal, if not a judicial, presence in the countryside. The new taxes proved an easy and long-standing innovation. Guatemala City received permission in 1795 to establish a four-year tax on panela and sugar, two important ingredients in local liquor manufacture, which in some way made up for the
million pesos. If Camacho had raised this point, it is not surprising that the council sought to rid themselves of such a reformer.
177
lost right to collect the official liquor tax. The proceeds o f this tax, as well as a tax on pool halls, went to fund short-term needs: the purchase o f uniforms for the local militia and construction and repairs o f the citys hospital, town hall, womens jail and grain warehouse. Yet the city found a way to extend the tax well beyond its initial period. After a four-year extension, the city recommended that rather than abolish the tax, the crown authorize the use o f its income to support the city hospital run by the religious order o f San Juan de Dios. The hospital had lost its principal source o f income with the abolishment o f the tax on chicha, a local grain liquor. The audiencia, and then the king, approved the change in 1804, with the proviso that only towns within a fifty-league radius pay the taxes, rather than the 100 leagues suggested by the audience, because it was unlikely that the principally poor inhabitants o f such an immense territory would really seek help from the hospital if sick.35 This temporary tax still existed in 1816, when, despite a denunciation o f the Consulado de Comercio, the king recommended continuation o f its support for uniforms, construction and hospital because of the benefit to commerce and public utility.36 While the hospital and militia costs were ongoing, the willingness o f the Crown to pay for public buildings that were taking more than twenty years to erect and fund suggests that a contented and well-funded city council was more important to Ferdinand VO than the fiscal austerity o f his grandfather.
34 Chinchilla Aguilar, El ayuntamiento colonial, pp. 106-107, confirms that the colonial council rarely had recourse to imposition o f arbitrios and lists a handful o f exceptions. 35 AGI Guatemala 415, Consulta 16, 20 September 1804, Council o f the Indies. The royal order confirming the decision was issued 20 October 1804. See also Chinchilla Aguilar, El ayuntamiento colonial,p . 107. 36 AGI Guatemala 416, Consulta, 3 March 1816.
178
In the provinces, intendants promoted use o f the arbitrio as a way to fund new positions created by the Ordenanza de Intendentes and to improve rundown provincial capitals without assigning costs to the local elites whom they wanted to convince to purchase council seats and take over the burden o f city administration. Chiapas first intendant immediately proposed a series o f low taxes on products from panela and local soap to imported goods and sales o f mules to increase Ciudad Reals revenues so that the city councilors would not pay deficits from their pockets, and to increase the city revenue enough to pay the thousand-peso salary o f the new adviser.37 The intendant of Honduras proposed a similar tax on the intendancy in 1799 in order to increase revenues for the capital city, Comayagua. When other towns in the jurisdiction protested this practice, the Council o f the Indies allowed the tax, but only on goods bought and sold within the city limits, because the principal improvementsconstruction o f a town hall and militia barracks would benefit the city more than the province.38 The Council also insisted that future taxes not be levied without express permission o f the audience and the Council.39 In 1801, the intendant o f Leon, Jose Salvador, also proposed a series of taxes in his districts, but this proposal was disapproved because it did not take into
37 AGI Guatemala 413, Consulta 9, 1791. El Intendente de Chiapas propone un impuesto para mejorar los propios y arbitrios de Ciudad Real. In this case, the Council recommended application o f a general royal circular on taxation of 14 September 1788. 38 AGI Guatemala 415, Consulta 13, 31 July 1804 fora summary of the actions from 1799-1804. There was some confusion in Madrid in 1804 on whether Comayagua was charging the taxes, approved in 1802, since the Consulado de Comercio claimed that the intendant was respecting a royal order o f 7 September 1800, which rejected the audiencia 's approval o f new arbitrios for Comayaga on four important local products: cattle, cacao, sugar and anil. For text o f the royal order, see AGCA A 1.23 1651-10286, f. 290, 7 September 1800. 39 AGI Guatemala 525, Consulta 8 April 180. This consultation resulted in a Council decision that the Audience, not the Tribunal de Real Hacienda, would approve any new ordenanzas about arbitrios in the kingdom. A 23 February 1798 royal order had chastised the audience for implementing new arbitrios
179
account variations in the population and riches o f the different towns in the intendancy.40 Even districts that remained independent o f the intendancies participated in the revival of this form o f income. Sonsonate received permission to tax cattle providers and urban property owners in 1808 to fund construction o f a new prison, town hall and militia barracks. Interestingly, the town was not allowed to tax landowners two reales for each caballeria o f land.41 Although city councils and intendants might clash over questions o f oversight or direction of civic projects, the collaboration made to increase local taxation for local benefit forged a solid alliance between intendancy capitals and their governors that makes it difficult to understand the historical literatures emphasis on American resistance to the intendants. Such alliances were consolidated when intendants, like Luis Martinez Navarrete o f San Salvador, supported city petitions that sought to increase provincial economic or political autonomy from the kingdom capital. San Salvadors syndic in 1803 found an ally for the city in its request for reinstatement o f an annual indigo fair, which had met in the intendancys town o f San Vicente, that had allowed the indigo growers o f the province to increase their bargaining power with Guatemala Citys merchants. The council, the pueblo it reperesents, and the
without first seeking royal approval. For a discussion o f this order, see AGI Guatemala 415, Consulta 13, 31 July 1804. 40 AGCA A 1.2 Legajo 4573, Expediente 39489, RC, 10 June 1801. 4 1 AGI Guatemala 628. Draft RC (ND) and report o f Contador General, Pedro Aparici, Madrid, 8 November 1808.
180
intendant, joined to urge the revival o f the fair as advantageous not only to themselves but also the royal coffers.42 The alliances were consolidated when intendants used their authority to appoint local elites, often members of the town councils that had lost direct jurisdiction over the countryside, as their subdelegates. Numerous Crown confirmations indicate that this practice was perfectly acceptable, even when the choice fell on members the local elite who lived in the principal cities and towns o f an intendancy and had commercial or farming interests in the district to which they were named. Such was the case in the selections o f miners, merchants and landowners like Pedro Martir de Zelaya, Estevan Rivera, Mariano Prado, Joaquin Vigil, Josef Echeverria, and Phelipe Mariano Vidaurre, members o f the Tegucigalpa, San Salvador, Leon, Granada, Comayagua and San Vicente town councils, to serve as subdelegates in their districts 43 Much rarer were cases like that o f the appointment by intendant of Nicaragua o f Santiago Garcia as the new subdelegate for Masaya in 1807, because Garcia was a lawyer from Guatemala and
42 AGI Guatemala 722, Interim Intendant Luis Martinez Navarrate to S.M., San Salvador, 13 October 1803. 43 This is only a fragment o f the nominations but serves to show both the connections between municipal office and other office holding under the Bourbon reforms, as well as the universality o f the practice. ANH, Seccion Colonial, Caja 197, Miner, merchant and hacendado Pedro Martir de Zelaya was one o f the first subdelegados named to mining village Yuscaran (1789-1795), within the former district o f Tegucigalpa, on whose town council he held a permanent seat. AGI Guatemala 430, Confirmation of Mariano Prado as subdelegado o f Sensuntepeque, where the captain general noted he was a hacendado yet still the most idoneo for the job (Letter 180, 3 December 1804, Captain General Gonzalez Saravia); AGI Guatemala 430, 16 February 1803, Confirmation of the appointment o f Joachin Vigil, regidor of Leon, as subdelegado of Masaya; 17 February 1804, Confirmation o f Joseph Echeverria, regidor of Granada, as subdelegado o f Matagalpa; Confirmation o f Phelipe Mariano Vidaunre, receptor o f sales tax, regidor and alcalde ordinario o f San Vicente, as subdelegado o f Cojutepeque, San Salvador, 18 August 1807; Confirmation o f Estevan de Rivera, subdelegado of Tegucigalpa, Province o f Comayagua, 20 January 1803. At the time o f his nomination in 1802, Rivera was a mayor o f Comayagua.
181
local merchants, vecinos and cattle ranchers wanted the post because o f the real monopoly on the meat market (abastos) the job provided.44 The kind o f conflict that did emergeand that has received comment by scholars like John Preston Moore and Maria Teresa Zubiri Marin tends to fall into the category o f conflict that had beset imperial government since time immemorial: specific complaints about the specific actions o f specific officials, couched, in fact, in these terms. Conflicts also included resentment o f places that lost privileges and status as a result o f the reform. As the work of these scholars shows, some capital cities resisted the efforts o f an intendant, whose energy, rather than broader authority, either demanded more municipal activity from those disinclined to meet the needs for new bridges, roads and other civic projects. Most capitals, however, praised their intendants, and praised them sincerely, leaving the institutional critiques to come from those whose authority was truly threatened by the powerful new governors: the captains general and viceroys;45 and the cities and towns which became peripheral municipalities when incorporated into a many-city intendancy. As no intendant was established in Guatemala (or Mexico), perhaps because o f the Peruvian experience, the Central American capital did not produce the same kind o f global document that Lima, in Peru, presented to the Crown in the 1790s.46
44 AGI Guatemala 430, Letter 304, Captain General Gonzalez Saravia to S.M., 3 December 1807. 45 See Moore, The Cabildo in Peru, pp. 155-170 - in which Moore shows how Lima resisted intendant interference and regional cities welcomed and lauded the efforts o f their new officials. This myth, based on studies o f colonial capitals rather than a consideration of the differing impact in capitals and provinces, persists in recent scholarship. See, for example, Maria Teresa Zubiri Marin, "El cabildo de Caracas y la intendencia: un enfrentamiento significativo, in Coloquio Intemacional Carlos I I I y su Siglo. Actas, Vol. 2, (Madrid: Universidad Complutense: Departamento de Historia Moderna, 1987), pp. 467-477. 46 Ordenanza de Nueva Espana, 1786, Art. 34, in Morazzani, Las ordenanzas de intendentes, p. 90.
182
The most likely institutions to protest the intendancies were the cities that lost political authority with the abolition of the provinces (alcaldias mayores) o f which they had been capital. Such was the case with the town o f Tegucigalpa, which lost its status as a regional capital when it was adopted into the intendancy o f Comayagua in 1788. This loss of status had two serious consequences for the town: reduced access to the products and services o f the former hinterland, and fiscal independence. Tegucigalpa native and cabildantes, Pedro Martin de Zelaya, the subdelegado assigned to Tegucigalpa in place of the alcalde mayor, recommended the establishment of various lieutenants in additional towns, to reduce the distance rural populations had to travel for economic and political justice.47 Intendant Juan Nepomuceno Quesada agreed, naming lieutenants in Choluteca, Nacaome, Aguanqueterique, Cedros and Danli. The principal subdelegation o f Tegucigalpa was thus reduced to a jurisdiction, in the first instance, o f
This article stated that cities in which a viceroy or audiencia was located remained dependent on these authorities, according to regulations o f the Recopilacion de Indias, with no alteration in their jurisdictions. 47 The fate of the former districts addressed in Art. 9 o f the 1786 Ordenanzas de Nueva Espafia, which stated that unless otherwise specified los demas corregimientos y alcaldias mayores de toda la comprension... conforme vayan vacando, o cumpliendo su tiempo, los provistos por mi en unas y otros, y entro tanto estaran inmediatamente sujetos y subordinados a los respectivos intendentes de su distrito, y estos les subdelegaran sus encargos para que asi se uniforme desde Iuego , el gobiemo de todas las provincias, y se evita la confusion que siempre causa la diversidad de jurisdiccionesy ministros. (p 66) Article 11 continues that as the districts are suppressed, royal jurisdiction would fall to the intendant. The alcaldes ordinarios o f Spanish cities towns and places ( lugares ) would keep their traditional authority, and even towns without ayuntamientos were under the new laws allowed to have elected alcaldes (p. 68). Per article 41 of the Ordenanza General o f 1803, the cabecera o f a former alcaldia mayor or corregimiento would receive a subdelegado de intendente. En lugar de los corregidores y alcaldes mayores que en todas partes han de extinguirse y en los propios pueblos que antes eran cabeceras de la provincia y lo deben ahora ser de partido, se pondran sudelegados, que como aquellos jueces administren justicia y cumplan las mismas obligaciones y cargas que en su distrito les eran peculiares y les estaban anexas, observando la instruccion particular que de ellas se les da y va unida a esta Ordenanza, para facilitarles mas el desempeno de su ministerio y precaver dudas y disputas con motivo de su subordinacion y dependencia de los intendnetes. Morazzani, Las ordenanzas de intendentes. pp. 68-70.
183
the mines o f Yuscaran, San Antonio, and Santa Lucia.48 This did not sit well with other Tegucigalpa elites, who quickly marshaled arguments to convince the Crown to restore its previous district and status. Even though elites were named to serve as the new subdelegados, the powerful men o f the city used their positions on the town council to initiate passive resistance to instructions from Comayagua to implement the new district, by refusing to answer any correspondence on this point.49 A related concern o f Tegucigalpas elites was the growth o f competing sources of local political power within the territory of what had always been the alcaldia mayor. For example, the two new mayors o f the town o f Danli, a mining and cattle ranching area, immediately sought to establish their authority not just within a 4-league jurisdiction, but in the entire parish o f Danli, a wider territory. Then -subdelegado in Tegucigalpa, alderman Manuel Jose Midence, resisted these pretensions, which would further shrink the capitals authority. In 1799, he wrote that his predecessor (also a Tegucigalpa alderman), Manuel Antonio Vasquez y Rivera, had commissioned an agent to determine Danlis jurisdiction, who had set the territory at five leagues. The
48 Although the published document indicates that Pedro Martin de Zelaya was the subdelegado, it is highly likely that the individual was in fact Pedro Martir de Zelaya, Tegucigalpa's wealthiest bachelor and an important political figure who had been active in creating the town council. Pedro Martin de Zelaya, Copia del Ynforme del Subdelgado de Thegucigalpa, August 8, 1793, Boletin del Archivo General de Guatemala 7:4 (1941-2), pp. 242-244. Taken from AGCA A l . l Leg. 1796, Exp. 13455. 49 By 1803, Intendant Ramon Anguiano was so fed up with the subdelegado's refusal to answer repeated requests (since 1798) for information on the value of the council's regimientos, that he imposed a fine for recalcitrance. His letter o f reprimand clarified that since you do not want to comply with any providencia o f this government, from this day forward you are assessed a fine commensurate with the fault.'' AGI Guatemala 629, Testimonio del expediente sobre...graduar el legitimo valor que deva fijarse a los oficios de Regidores (1804), f. 60. Anguiano al Subdelegado de Tegucigalpa, 16 April 1803. Among the city councilors o f Tegucigalpa who served as subdelegados between 1787 and 1800 were Zelaya, Antonio Tranquilino de la Rosa, Geronimo Zelaya, Estevan Rivera, Manuel Jose Midence, and Francisco Antonio Gonzalez Travieso. Mario Felipe Martinez Castillo, Apuntamientos para una historia colonial de Tegucigalpa y su alcaldia mayor (Tegucigalpa: Editorial Universitaria, 1982), pp. 146-147.
184
intendant himself had named yet a third Tegucigalpa alderman, Francisco Hariza, on a similar mission. Midence in 1799 protested in the name of the council o f Tegucigalpa, which believed even 4 leagues to be excessive in territory for the mayors o f the pueblo o f Danli, which lacks the privilege o f an ayuntamiento, erection and confirmation as a Villa. 50 By stripping Tegucigalpa o f its role as provincial capital, and elevating additional settlements to the status o f self-governance, the implementation o f the Intendancy act created a source o f tension which would spill over in the independence era, as each subdelegation chose sides in the various decisions to be made on the regions political internal and external constitution. It was not only the former capitals o f alcaldias mayores that found fault with the system. Another issue for towns that had no intendant was the unpopularity o f levying taxes in all towns and all communities to benefit the capital. When the Intendant of San Salvador wanted to raise funds to build a bigger womens prison, he recommended extending a tax on cattle levied in San Salvador, San Miguel and San Vicente to the rest o f the provinces cabeceras. Although the powerful householders of San Salvador had already contributed 3100 pesos to the work, the intendant, Ignacio Santiago y Ulloa (who would be ousted ten years later) expected the cost to be double this amount. To make up the difference, he asked the town councils o f all three towns to contribute another 500 pesos each from their funds, and also suggested that several small taxes be
50 A G C A A 3.3 Legajo 44, Exp 5344, transcribed in Martinez Castillo, Apuntamientos, p. 146-147. que aun las mismas cuatro leguas son exesivas de territorio a los Alcaldes del pueblo de Danli, por carecer del privilegio de ayuntamiento, ereccion y confirmacion en Villa, y como a tal pueblo, spulicad Vuestra Senoria mande senalarles su territorio , para que no se entrometan al de la subdelegacion, pues de este modo se obviaran diferencias que perturb an la paz y buena armonia.
185
charged in the markets and collected from Indians and ladinos from neighboring towns, on the grounds that the prison would serve women from the whole province. San Vicentes town council argued that not only did the town funds not suffice to pay for local public works, but that collecting o f taxes from the poor artisans would cost more than they would produce. Defending the districts poor, San Vicentes ayuntamiento also said that collecting such a tax was not only not particularly useful to the jurisdiction, but would also deprive the public of goods it needed funds to purchase. San Miguel similarly claimed the funds would be put to better use in rebuilding the decrepit city hall and the hospice that the city maintained for travelers. Although San Salvador itself was less than enthusiastic about a new jail, at least it would directly benefit as both the location o f the building and the provisioner o f those building i t 5 1 Such efforts by intendants to improve the capitals, thus could contribute to resentment o f more visible and concentrated government. In replicating the former relationships o f the provinces to the capital within the intendancies, however, the new centralized province symbolically, as well as institutionally, slighted former districts by erasing their geographic salience. A sore point for important towns like Tegucigalpa was that Article I o f the 1786 Ordenanza declared that the intendancy would take its name from its respective capital city or town.52 While Tegucigalpa lost its status as capital o f an alcaldia mayor with its own name, to add insult to injury, annexation further meant incorporation into a polity named after Comayagua, a town with a failing agricultural economy whose own town
5 1 AGI Guatemala 534, RC, 22 March 1803.
186
council had been in disarray until the intendant galvanized its revival. Comayaguas profile would rise, in part due to Tegucigalpas silver and its former districts tobacco production. An alternate name for the province of Comayagua, dating back to the conquest, had been Honduras. Instead, throughout the closing years o f Spanish imperial rule, both colonial and Spanish officials alternated in referring to the intendancy as both Comayagua and Honduras. Similarly, the intendancy o f Leon was often referred to as Nicaragua, a conquest-era provincial name, presumably to defuse tension between intendancy capital Leon and its internal rival, Granada. Leon, the seat o f the diocese, could not consider itself to be the capital as clearly as the cities o f Comayagua or San Salvador. For, since the 1740s, the officials o f the royal treasury had alternated their seat between the two cities, claiming an inability to pay, to have a lieutenant in Granada to collect its share o f tribute payments and other sources o f income. Matias de Galvez, in 1785, saw the need to extend this alternation, which continued at least until 1817, when the Council o f the Indies revisited the issue.53 When the intendancies became states after independence, this apparently minor point was permanently resolved. With no evident discussion, Comayagua and Leon were discarded as possible names for the new polities, to be replaced by the equally traditional yet less municipally associative names o f Honduras and Nicaragua.
52 Ordenanza de Nueva Espafta, 1786, Art. 1, in Morazzani, Las ordenanzas de intendentes, p. 50. 53 AGI Guatemala 690, Consulta, 1785-1817. In a letter o f 15 May 1817, the captain general of Guatemala queried the Council o f the Indies whether with the new establishment o f Indias, and having given that o f Nicaragua to its governor it might be better for the treasury to remain in either Leon or Granada, como que las cajas deven estar en la capital de la Intendencia. No decision is included with the case, which has collected the original case from 1785.
187
As a result o f complaints, as had happened with the fiscal reforms two decades earlier, the intendancy reforms became subject to the same negotiation-uponimplementation that had characterized Spanish-American policy since the conquest. If the king refused to modify many o f the Ordenanza s articles regarding municipal finance, uniformity was sacrificed in other areas that generated significant criticism. In the intendancy reforms, as in all other Bourbon projects, uniformity and the principle of regal inflexibility, were rapidly sacrificed when either common sense or significant resistance dictated. Tegucigalpa, after almost fifteen years o f bureaucratic appeals, succeeded in resuming its status as an alcaldia mayor in 1812. Opposition to Article 1lo f the Ordenanzas, which called for a mayor to serve the first year as the second alcalde and the second year as the first alcalde, led to first a partial and then full revocation o f the article.^ Perhaps the only city that found its relationship to power unchanged with the intendancies was that o f Guatemala City. As capital o f the Kingdom of Guatemala waxed rather than waned in the move to more government that characterized the policies o f Charles m and his heirs. By deciding not to establish an intendancy in the region closest to the audiencia and Asuncion, Spains politicians spared this region the change that induced town councils to quarrel. When Antigua Guatemala (Santiago)
54 Ordenanza de Nueva Espana, 1786, Art. 44, in Morazzani, Las ordenanzas de intendentes, p. 68. For the protests o f Asuncion, San Salvador and Leon, see AGI Guatemala 414. Discussion o f opposition to the same article by the towns o f Peru is discussed in Moore, The cabildo in Peru, pp. 181, 184. Moore cites the general cedula as being issued in 1800.
188
finally achieved cabildo status in 1799, Asuncion responded generously by returning ejido lands to the old capital.55 The consolidation by the Bourbons o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala as an autonomous jurisdiction, fiscally, politically, ecclesiastically and culturally separate from the distant viceroyalty o f New Spain, had a predictable consequence: the concentration o f new centers o f power in the city. As the long time home o f the bishop o f Guatemala, Santiagos religious importance had increased dramatically when in 1744 the diocese became an archdiocese responsible for the religious well-being o f the entire kingdom. This promotion heralded the districts religious as well as secular autonomy from the powerful but distant Viceroyalty o f New Spain. As noted above, the fiscal reforms of the 1760s led to the proliferation o f offices and officers o f the real hacienda as well. The Direction General de Alcabala (1763), Factoria de tabacos (1767), Contaduria Mayor (1771) and Administration de Correos (1768) all had their main branches in Santiago and then Asuncion. As provincial elites flocked to the capital to study and seek work, further opportunities opened up. In 1793, a Consulado de Comercio (Merchants Guild) was established to improve commerce and commercial justice in the kingdom. Its headquarters was naturally in Guatemala City, and its principal officers elected annually from among the merchants o f the capitalthe same men who controlled the ayuntamiento 56 Guatemala City received royal permission to establish a Sociedad de
55 Pardo, Efemerides. 56 For the most complete discussion o f the consulado, as well as a list o f its officers, see Ralph Lee Woodward, Jr., The Consulado de Comercio o f Guatemala, 1793-1871, PhD, Tulane University, 1962.
189
Amantes de la Patria in 1795. Although extinguished for arbitrary reasons in 1799, in its brief hedyay the Sociedad with over 150 members from the highest ranks o f church, government and societyhad fostered agriculture, industry, education and the arts, and had also contributed to the founding of the territorys first newspaper, the Gazeta de Guatemala.. The paper was published from 1797 to 1816 and demonstrated the capitals intellectual and cultural hegemony.57 Finally, as testimony to the growing class of letrados graduating from a flourishing University, the kingdom opened its first Colegio de Abogados in 1810 to vet the lawyers allowed to practice and present cases to the audience.55 Both the merchants guild and economic society had representatives in the isthmus other cities, and the Gazeta had correspondents and readers in the provinces, but the center was clearly Guatemala City. Intendancy and City Council Another myth o f the intendancy reformsthat they discouraged eligible men from seeking appointment to town councilsfalls as we examine the municipal revival o f Central America. Intendants interest and care in reviving city councils was discussed above. The same officials took equal, if not greater care, to staff the cabildos of the Kingdom. Over ninety seats on 14 town councilstwo o f them new, at least two of them revivedwere sold between 1794 and 1807 (see Table 4.2) Sales o f council seats, however, do not tell the whole story of local interest in municipal service.
For a list of 41 men who in the 1790s served in both ayuntam iento and consulado , see AHN Consejos 20983, Pieza 10, Lists 1 and 2. 57 John Carter Brown Library (JCBL, Providence, RI), 62-645. Catalogo de los individuos q u e com ponen la real sociedad de am antes d e la patria d e G uatem ala en el a no d e 1799, Guatemala.
190
Guatemala City, after the transfer o f the capital, established 2-year aldermens positions (regidores biennales), and successfully elected ten aldermen (five each year) for a decade (1784-1793). There was no apparent problem in finding eligible men to serve in the positions, which later were filled in a group sale o f eleven positions by the same individuals, and primarily to their brothers and sons. Nor was Guatemala City the only municipality to use this strategy to fill vacant posts.59 Sonsonate, a port town with a smaller, and perhaps less stable population o f merchants and landowners, sold four regimientos in 1794, but in previous years had elected four biennial aldermen.60 This is not to say that local rhetoric bemoaning the loss of prestige o f municipal service in any way diminished. After all, if the privilege o f membership were acknowledged, competition for seats in the council, and a corresponding rise in their cost would ensue. Instead, the cost of a council seat was kept quite low. The cost o f a double regimiento in the 16th and 17th centuries could rise as high as several thousand pesos, with seats in important trading and agricultural centers costing significantly more than seats in smaller, more remote or poorer towns. At the close o f the eighteenth century, however, a report on the prices offered for regimientos in Central Americas fourteen aynoitamientos for the period o f 1796-1807 led the audiencia to recommend setting the values for every regimiento doble in the kingdom at 500 pesos, and 300 pesos for every
58 For a list o f colegio members of 1813, see JCBL, 70-228, Lista de lo s individuos d e l ilustre colegio de abogados d e este reyno d e G uatem ala. O f the 39 men listed, at least 16 served on the Guatemala City town council. 59 See Chapter 2. 60 AGI Guatemala 446, Titles, 9 June 1780, Four regim ientos sold in 1775 to Manuel Diez Clemente (regidor & alcalde Provincial Sta Hermandad, 250 pesos); Manuel Carrera (regidor & depositario general, 250 pesos); Francisco Guevara y Dongo (regidor & alferez real, 200 pesos); and Jose Antonio Cicilia y Montoya (regidor sencillo, 100 pesos).
191
regimiento sencillo. As the table below shows, this number seems a compromise as well as an adoption o f the rates actually in effect for the capital, Asuncion (Guatemala City). In larger towns like Leon in which purchase o f a regimiento remained either a lucrative or prestige decision, some positions still drew upwards o f 1000 pesos. In others, like Cartago, Costa Rica and Comayagua, Honduras, bids o f 100 or 150 pesos for regimientos sencillos were the rule, not the exception. Table 4.2 Prices paid for Regimientos, Kingdom o f Guatemala, 1790-1807 (in pesos) Years - Type of. City or Town : Price rimge: ^ (pesos) Regimiento Guatemala 300; 1 @ 1050 1794-1806 11 RS 5 RD 500 Guatemala 1794-1806 Quezaltenango 1805 * 750 Todos (6) Sonsonate 100 1795-1803 3 RS 300 Sonsonate 1795-1803 5 RD Ciudad Real 1800 200-330 2 RD Leon 325-720 1790-1796 4 RS Leon 1000-2000 1794-1798 3 RD Granada 300-305 1793-1806 3 RS Granada 1794-1807 751-1050 2 RD Nicaragua 225-360 1790-1801 3 RS Nicaragua 1803 305 1 RD Cartago 1799 1 RD 150 Comayagua 1794-1807 100-300 3 RS Tegucigalpa 1795-1802 200-210 4 RS Tegucigalpa 1802-1806 500-1320 3 RD San Salvador 1796 248-331 3 RS San Salvador 1796 464-1105 3 RD San Vicente 1796-1805 200-300 2 RS San Vicente 1793-1801 3 RD 400-3125 San Miguel 1794-1805 300-550 6 RS San Miguel 1799 600 Renunc. RD San Miguel 1802-1806 600 3 RD Santa Ana 1807* 1 RD 300 Santa Ana 1807* los sencillos 200
* N ew tow n councils created in the years o f the sales. RD = R egim iento D oble, RS = Regim iento Sencillo S o u rc e: AGI G uatem ala 629, L etter No. 37, C aptain G eneral A n to n io G onzalez, 3 A pril 1804.
192
In the report that accompanied the analysis o f council seat values, the general lament, from Costa Rica to Guatemala, was o f a loss o f prestige and interest in municipal service. Intendants and residents alike bemoaned the dearth o f involved and capable men to take on the role o f administrators and justice-givers for their cities. Certainly, the repeated professions o f distaste for purchase o f regimientos kept the price low and favored group purchase o f seats and thus control of the city government by specific interest groups. In some places, the intendants often seemed to devote significant attention to reviving moribund corporations in the towns o f their residence, as, for example, in Comayagua and Cartago, Costa Rica. Yet, in other places such as Sonsonate, which had no intendant, the struggle had gone the other way since the early decades o f the eighteenth century, when prominent city residents were repeatedly stymied by a jealous governor, who prevented them from reestablishing the city council. Such tribulations were long gone by the intendancy period. Men who would influence local and regional politics in rural Guatemala, continued to evince interest in membership on the town council as their corporations received official support. In Sonsonate, leading families o f Sicilia, Villavicencio, Ypifia, and Carrera contributed to a renaissance o f the town council there in the 1770s, purchasing regimientos. In this small place, over 40 men served the city between 1775 and 1800, and the most influential bought permanent seats. In Tegucigalpa, over 25 men served between 1787 and 1800 alone, from the influential Zelaya, Midence, Rosa and Vasquez families. Guatemala Citys council welcomed several generations o f Aycinenas, the most
193
powerful family in the kingdom, as well as Beltranenas, Arrivillagas, Batres, and Barrutia, Najeras. These men represented both new and old blood. The Aycinena presence, as has been well documented, began with the arrival of Basque merchant Juan Fermin de Aycinena, who married in quick succession into three of the wealthiest Guatemalan families and took his first position in the cabildo in the 1750s. Several other Spanish merchants, among them Gregorio Urruela, Martin Bammdia and Pedro Jose Beltranena, took their seats in this period. So, too, did first generation sons of Spaniards who had come earlier in the century like Juan Jose Barrutia, Manuel Jose Juarros y Montufar, Manuel Jose Lara, Juan Manrrique y Guzman, Manuel Jose and Tadeo Pavon y Munoz, and Cristobal Galvez y Corral (The fathers o f each o f these cabildantes had also held municipal office).61 (See Appendices K-M for complete lists o f members of the Guatemala Tegucigalpa and Sonsonate town councils for the period 1787-1850). Regardless of whether local interest or good administrators originated the municipal revival, what is demonstrated repeatedly is that once revived, the city councils proved dedicated to attending to long-neglected civic projects from the repair o f public buildings to the erection o f much-needed bridges or the clearing o f longuntended roads. Certainly the emphasis on new taxes would have made such projects less costly to the ranking community members who would previously have been called
61 See Richmond F. Brown, Profits, Prestige, and Persistence: Juan Fermin de Aycinena and the Spirit of Enterprise in the Kingdom o f Guatemala, Hispanic American Historical Review 75:3 (August 1995), pp. 405-440. For much of the biographical information, see Gustavo Palma Murga, Nucleos de poder local y relaciones familiares en la ciudad de Guatemala a finales del siglo XVIII, Mesoamerica (USA)
194
on to contribute a more substantial proportion to public works. Yet, the willingness o f Tegucigalpas merchants, miners and landowners to donate their expertise and building materials to the bridge that would take its name, the Puente Mallol, from the alcalde mayor who initiated it, demonstrates that civic affairs could indeed inspire civic action. From the 1790s to 1808, when Napoleons invasion o f Spain permanently changed the function that city government would play in Central America, only corporations like Guatemala City really resisted the administrative oversight demanded by the Ordenanzas. And even this corporation continued to function with the participation o f the most respected families and individuals the city could offer. To name just two distinguished statesmen o f this period, Dr. Jose Acyinena y Carrillo, later a member o f the Council o f State in Spain, served as mayor, syndic and alderman in Guatemala City between 1793 and 1803. Jose Maria Peynado took his place as regidor perpetuo in 1794, whence he would draft the instructions for the citys representative to the Cortes o f Cadiz in 1811. These men, and their brothers, sons, cousins, and nephews would play distinguished roles in the independence period and many o f them would get their start as slndicos and regidores and alcaldes. Order and Reform, Alcaldes de Barrio As Guatemala Citys authority grew, so too did the number o f inhabitants and the need to maintain order in the streets. The close o f the eighteenth century witnessed the birth o f a new clash between the city council and audiencia over the control o f the growing and multi-ethnic capital through an increase in the number o f police officials,
7:12 (Dec 1986), pp. 241 -308; and Marta Casaus Arzu,Guatemala: Linaje y Racismo (San Jose, CR:
195
the neighborhood watchmen {alcaldes de barrio). This clash revealed many of the same elements as the fight over the new alcaldias mayores o f half a century earlier. It additionally highlighted new tensions in the kingdoms capital between the first- and second-generation Creoles who controlled the town council, and a growing number o f Spanish immigrants, some o f whom failed to find posts in either the cabildo or other corporations. Evidence from the case further reveals that there was a willingness on the part o f the city elite to find a means to grant some power to the growing number of native-born residents o f the capital with questionable family backgrounds who had nonetheless achieved some education and position. Such support came at the expense o f those Spaniards who might or might not be willing to put down the kind of roots required to be accepted into the local power networks. The issue at stakecontrol o f the apparatus o f policingrecalls once again that Spains reforms in the Americas derived from experience at home. The refining and then overhaul o f the citys police authorities had their origin not only in disorder in the Central American capital, but the fear that Spanish officials had o f urban mobilization in the wake o f the Esquilache Riots in Madrid in 1766. This popular uprising had spurred Charles HI and his ministers to establish alcaldes de quartel and alcaldes de barrio , in the imperial capital.62 Unsurprisingly then, officials sent overseas soon turned to the same mechanisms to increase order and control on an even less-understood
FLACSO, 1992), passim. 62 For a brief discussion o f the history of policing in Madrid, see Concepcidn de Castro. Campomanes: E stadoy reformismo ilustrado (Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1996), pp. 122-126. Madrid had had as many as 12 alcaldes de corte living and conducting rounds in the quarters o f the city in the eighteenth century. In the 16th century, there had been only 6, who had required 7 scribes and 60 constablesto help them.
196
plebe in the Americas. This reform, however, depended on local initiative, as the king in Spain did not conceive o f a uniform means to achieve order. Soon after the king established alcaldes de barrio in Madrid, to supplement city responsibilities for the policia o f the imperial capital, governors in the Indies began to propose similar reforms in the major cities under their jurisdiction, usually alleging that increased urban populations, mostly of non-Spanish heritage, required ever greater supervision and control. In eighteenth century Guatemala, the jobs o f patrolling, arresting and trying individuals fell under municipal jurisdiction in both pueblos de Indios and Spanish cities and towns. Thus, reform to police work meant changes to city government. Unlike the financial reforms o f the 1760s and the intendancy reforms o f the 1780s, the creation o f alcaldes de barrio in Central America started as a local response to a local problem. The audiencia o f the 1760s wished to address a (perceived) increase in crime, vagrancy and idleness in the capital. These early reforms, which introduced the division o f the city into four barrios for which the different alcaldes de barrio, or alguaciles mayores, would be responsible, apparently met with local approval, but were resisted by the captain general as a reduction o f his authority.63 The new positions appear not to have made the move to the new capital. Later reform efforts met with the captain generals approval but stirred up the Guatemala City town council. As with the presidents earlier objections, the council
After the Esquilache uprising revealed the deficiencies o f the system, the city was redistricted in 1768 into 8 cuarteles with 8 barrios each. Each cuartel would have one alcalde; and each barrio another 8. 63 AGCAA1.23 Leg. 1528, p. 411. A Royal order o f 12 February 1764 reestablished the division o f Santiago into barrios made by the audiencia and president. In this first incarnation, the alcaldes ordinarios. with the support o f the local military companies, were charged with controlling delinquency.
197
objected not to the ends o f the project, but to the means used to achieve them. Guatemala Citys council complained that the project, as drafted in 1791, would cripple municipal prestige and reduce both the value and honor o f a council seat. Not only were there to be alcaldes de quarteles, mostly members o f the audiencia, but 21 alcaldes de barrio, whom the President rather than the city would select, and who would be drawn from the same group o f Spaniards and Creoles of the highest distinction as those serving in the ayuntamiento. The citys exclusivity as the instrument of justice in the first instance would be broken. Another monopoly, this one part o f its rightful constitution, would be extinguished. That is, this is what would have happened had the reformers been able to push their measures through unchanged. But, through a series o f astute tactics and its usual tenacity, the city once again triumphed in the end and Bourbon rectitude was sacrificed on the altar o f local expediency. Policing in the new capital of Asuncion was conducted, at the outset, much as it had been in Santiago. Guatemala Citys council, as before, selected one alderman annually to serve as juez de policia, a position which in theory combined three jobs: coordinator o f the citys programs for maintenance o f the physical plant (streets, houses, public buildings), inspector o f taverns and other public houses, and enforcer o f the social order. What we consider to be police work, patrols (rondos) and prison administration, was the job o f the alderman who was town constable (alguacil mayor). Less than two years after the capitals official transfer to the Valle de la Hermita, at around the time that the bulk o f the population moved from the ruined to the new capital, the audiencia divided Asuncion into 4 districts (quarteles). Each district
198
received its own captain who was to patrol and help in administration o f justice. This transplanted the system instituted in the 1760s in Santiago.64 Apparently, however, considerable insecurity and crime in the new capital rendered this measure, adopted to reinforce the traditional system of patrols in the hands o f Indian justices and pardo militiamen, insufficient to control illicit activities on the unlit streets o f nighttime Guatemala.65 In 1788, audience and president sent Spain a proposal for a more sweeping change. With no reply forthcoming, in 1790, a new captain general, Bernardo Troncoso (1789-1794), commissioned oidor Francisco Robledo to draft a new plan. Robledo obliged in March 1791 with the Description de Quarteles y Barrios e Instrucciones de sus alcaldes ... para la Capital de Guatemala.66 The rules, approved on the 9th o f April, were printed and circulated a month later. At no point did Robledo, the captain general or the audiencia consult the Guatemala town council directly, although the responsibilities o f the new alcaldes de quartel and de barrio were strikingly similar to those o f the citys ju e z de policia. Robledos goal was improvement o f policing o f the citys multiracial communities by increasing the number o f leading vecinos who organized and coordinated the policia o f the citys neighborhoods. The regulation divided the city into seven quarteles, each supervised by an alcalde. These seven would have overall responsibility for the security, calm and order o f each quartel (Arts. 3, 7, Instm. de los Sres Alcaldes de Quartel), and would take turns heading daily patrols (rondos) of the
64 AGCA A 1.2 Legajo 41, Expediente 995. 1778. Real Acuerdo de la Audiencia 65 Christopher H. Lutz, Santiago de Guatemala 1541-1773: City. Caste and the Colonial Experience (Norman: University o f Oklahoma Press, 1994), p. 44.
199
city (Art. 5). Five alcaldes de quartel would be the oidores o f the audiencia; the citys two mayors would round out the complement (Arts. 1, 2). As judges, the alcaldes de quartel were responsible for initial handling o f all cases regarding policia. The instructions did not specify how to implement the provision that there would be no change to the civil and criminal jurisdictions o f the alcaldes ordinarios and the oydores who were also alcaldes de crimen (Art. 1). Each quartel would have three alcaldes de barrio drawn from the vecinos o f that barrio, twenty-one in total. Robledo proposed that the alcalde de barrio be Spanish and o f known distinction. If a neighborhood did not possess such a householder, one from a nearby barrio would be selected instead. There was no provision for allowing castas or less exalted inhabitants to assume this role (Art. 1, Instm. de Alcaldes de Barrio). On the recommendations o f the alcaldes de quartel, the president would select the alcaldes de barrio at the beginning o f each year. The city council would then swear them in (Art 2). This new office would have no salary, for it was conceived o f as an honor and municipal charge (Art. 5, 7), a positive act in service to the king which would add luster to requests for salaried offices in the Crowns gift.67 Technically a jurisdiccion pedanea (Art. 7), in fact the breadth o f the officers specific responsibilities suggests why Robledo considered that only the most distinguished householders qualified. Robledos instructions regulated every aspect o f
66 AGI Impresos Americanos 45/16. See also AGCA Al.38.3.16 Leg. 2645, Exp 22141. 6/ The alcalde de quartel was authorized to provide a letter attesting to the alcalde de barrio's service, a parralel attribute to the town councils provision o f testimonials for its own members and others o f the community who had provided services. See Castro, Campomanes, passim., for comparison with the Madrid organism.
200
city life, taking on tasks of good government that had traditionally been municipal and even church responsibilities. First among the new officials functions was to keep track o f his districts residents, by keeping a census (padron ) of the inhabitants (Art. 12) and registering their changes o f domicile (Art. 13); previously, only the priest had kept such records through his tracking o f birth, death and marriage sacraments. Next, the alcalde de barrio would see to the practical side o f morality. He was to ensure that artisans did not shirk their work or gamble on workdays (Art. 15,19); that idlers and vagrants were put to work (Art. 42); that parents sent their children to school (Art. 17); and that unemployed children were placed in households (Art. 16). He could also intervene in domestic arguments between a married couple, parents and children, or masters and servants (Art. 29). He was to prevent illicit games playing in inns, taverns, plazas and private households (Arts. 14, 18, 28); to close the citys taverns at 9 p.m. (Art. 18) and shut illicit drinking houses and factories for good (Art. 27). Through the diligence o f the alcalde de barrio, streets and fountains would be maintained (Arts. 19, 20-21, 25); residents sick with contagious disease transferred to hospitals (Arts. 33-35), crowds controlled (Art. 36), and fires put out (Art. 37). On questions o f crime, the alcalde de barrio had the faculty to arrest anyoneregardless of rank or fuero either on a judges orders or on his own authority if the person was caught in flagrante delicto (robbery, illicit sex, gambling, drunkenness). Almost a third o f the articles (Arts. 4056) provided instruction on the manner in which the alcalde de barrio was to carry out rondas, or patrols, and investigate any serious crime in his district (robbery, murder) with the help o f the militia, alguaciles and vecinos. Autonomous for most of his
201
actions, the alcalde de barrio did require clearance from the alcalde de quartel to intervene in delicate cases. Asuncions city fathers clearly perceived the combination o f a new judicial authority put in the hands o f the audiencia and their peers as both a criticism o f the work of the citys juez de policia and ju e z de aguas, elected annually from among the regidores, and a threat to the town councils traditional status and responsibilities. To measure the level o f the city councils anxiety, we have only to note the speed with which the city prepared a counterproposal and sent it to Spain. Francisco Gomez de Cos, the citys representative in Madrid, submitted his case to the king on 11 January 1792, a full seven months before the Council o f the Indies knew o f President Troncosos initiative or received his request for approval o f Robledos plan, and only six months after the city first received a copy o f Robledos proposal.68 Equally clear from the counterproposal was that the city perceived opportunity as well as danger in the creation of the alcaldes de barrio. If the new officials were fewer, selected by and drawn from all o f the citys vecinos, and clearly subordinate to the city councilors who supervised the same areas, the council would welcome the new institution as helpmeet rather than competition. Asuncion couched its plan in terms o f support for the laudable project to improve civic life, and rejection only o f specific ways in which the current plan reduced Asuncions prestige and increased audiencia control of city administration. The citys four-part proposal sought to reinforce the citys primacy by first reducing the number o f alcaldes de barrio from 21 to 14.
202
Second, the city proposed to remove the selection process from the hands o f the president and audience (Article 1) and have vecinos elect their alcaldes de barrio from among all the citys householders, not just Spaniards o f distinction. This was the procedure followed in Madrid.69 Third, to make clear the division between city government and the new alcaldes de barrio , the city argued that the swearing in ceremony should not take place in the city hall (Art. 2). Instead, giving the oath should be a function o f the alcaldes de quartel, on the grounds that since the new officers would not be ministros de republica, they should neither take their oath nor receive a seat in the cabildo. As a final point, the city sought to ensure that authority o f the alcaldes de barrio on matters o f policia such as street and fountain repair and cleanliness remained, as in the case o f Mexico City, a responsibility o f daily upkeep, while the juez de policia and ju e z de aguas addressed the broader issues o f planning and problem solving.70 More government and more social control would be welcome, implied the citys proposal, if the tools o f control remained in local hands, rather than the transient hold o f the members o f the audiencia and the loosely-connected Spanish community. The citys proposal provides insight into elite Creole patrol o f the borders o f membership in Guatemala City society. First, there was absolute resistance to having individuals who were not permanent members of colonial society, in this case the
68 AGI Guatemala 579, Carta del Capitan General B. Troncoso a SM, 2 May 1792. The Council of the Indies marked this letter received on 16 August 1792. 69 Castro. Campomanes, p. 124. Annually elected by the vecinos o f the barrio in which each o f 64 alcaldes de barrio lived and patrolled, the responsibilities as described were similar: registration of
203
judges o f the audience, making decisions about the criteria and individuals who would be selected as honored and apt for the highest form o f local political service, a seat on the town council. Second, by creating positions o f authority for members o f the citys other castes, Guatemala Citys proposal explicitly hoped to foster a system of advancement through merits that, without increasing competition for their own positions, could perhaps dispel growing tensions among capable men who were disenfranchised due to their racial heritage.71 In this instance, the colonial elites were more accommodating than the Spanish Crown and bureaucracy in seeking ways to integrate and advance the interests o f a visible body o f a minority growing in numbers and, presumably, resources and influence. There was some practical justification for the first two proposals, as the city pointed out. If 21 men of pure Spanish origin served each year, and were allowed the two year respite from council service granted in Article 6, then sixty-three people at any one time would be ineligible to serve on the permanent and elective seats o f the council. O f householders o f the first rank, Guatemala could boast perhaps 80, and this new type o f service would seriously cut into availability for other types o f municipal and government service.72 Already the number o f men eligible had been reduced with the creation o f the Consulado de Comercio (1793), whose consul and priors were drawn
inhabitants, patrols, arrest o f delinquents, sending beggars to a hospice or the army, etc. For specific duties, see the Novisima Recopilacion, Laws 9 and 10, Title 21, Book 3. 70 AGI Guatemala 579, Francisco Gomez de Cos a S.M., 11 January 1792. AGI Guatemala 579, Francisco Gomez de Cos a S.M., 11 January 1792. 72 AHN Consejos 20983, Pieza 10, Lista 3, ff 4-5. In 1789, former town councillor Gregorio Urruela presented a list o f 83 men available for council service to justify his request to be considered ineligible.
204
from the same elite population and were ineligible for simultaneous service on the aynmtamiento. An appeal to the Council of the Indies was not the citys only tool to prevent establishment of the new police force until its amendments could be included. To prevent implementation o f the ordenanzas until the Crown considered its counterproposals, the town council mobilized the 54 officers o f the citys militia to refuse to serve, on the grounds that service as alcaldes de barrio was incompatible with their militaryfuero, or privileges.73 When the armys judge advocate, oidor Joaquin Basa, upheld the officers position, an exasperated Troncoso had no recourse. On 4 February 1792, he suspended execution o f the project until a royal decision could be made and in May dispatched a 100-page testimony to Spain.74 In addition to denouncing the citys tactics, the testimony exposed their hypocrisy with evidence that militiamen served regularly in the ayuntamiento. Troncoso also included articles from the ordenanzas de milicias refuting the claim that military duties were incompatible with municipal service.75 The royal order o f 23 April 1793 that decided the dispute achieved something o f a compromise. It reduced the number o f quarteles to 6 from 7 (because o f the abolition
73 AGI Guatemala 579, Carta del Capitan General B. Troncoso a SM, 2 May 1792. Troncoso observed that the city held a junta in the house o f Col. Miguel Eguizabal, which resulted in the militia's opposition. 74 AGI Guatemala 579, Testimonio de los Autos sobre creacion de alcaldes de barrio, i de quarteles en la ciudad de Guatemala. The testimonio includes a list of the 40 officers o f the Regiment o f Provincial Dragoons o f Guatemala (ff. 94-95v), the 14 officers from the Batallon o f Infantry o f Sacatepeques living in the capital (ff. 96-96v), and the citys list o f the 49 men it considered apt for service in oficios concejiles, o f whom the first 20 were ineligible'for immediate service because they were either currently on the council, or less than the 2 year hiatus had passed since recent service (ff 96v-99v). 75 AGI Guatemala 579, Testimonio de los Autos sobre creacion de alcaldes de barrio, i de quarteles en la ciudad de Guatemala. Decreto de presidente Troncoso, 4 February 1792, ff. 99v-100.
205
o f one seat in the audiencia) and the number o f alcaldes from 3 to 2 per barrio, for a total o f 12 rather than 21. This dozen would take the oath o f office before the alcalde de quartel, rather than in the sessions changer o f the cabildo. On matters in which they city had previous authority, such as the cleanliness o f fountains and the pavement of city streets, the order declared that the faculties o f the regidores in charge o f these areas was to be understood as uncompromised. The Council also agreed that it was quite normal for there to be a distinction between the two types o f alcalde , because at least two were subordinate to the alcaldes de quartel who were also alcaldes ordinarios. In other words, the royal order acknowledged various realities o f Guatemalan society, including the relatively small number o f high-ranking vecinos who could fill the burdensome new posts and the importance for those o f that society to salvage municipal prestige. However, the bottom line was that the king did not accept the proposal to turn the alcaldes de barrio into a branch o f city government. Selection o f the alcaldes de barrio remained the prerogative o f the alcaldes de quartel, not the citys vecinos. Furthermore, the council denied the request to open service to non-Spaniards and granted only that the Spanish men eligible to serve could be o f known honor rather than known distinction. Finally, the king ruled that no secular Spaniard was exempt from service, including militiamen except when specifically occupied on military duty.76 Troncoso put the new system into effect in October 1793, and claimed victory in a letter o f January, 1794. The positive results, he wrote, could already be felt in terms
6 AGI Guatemala 579, Fiscals Report, 12 February 1794. This report contains a summary o f the articles
206
o f a drastic reduction o f drunkenness and in the number o f wounded admitted to the city hospitals. The captain general could also report that the eleven regimientos o f the capital, which had been unsellable and filled by biannual election since 1782, had been auctioned to a group o f distinguished men, most o f whom had already served on the council. By their purchase, these eleven men clearly took themselves out o f the pool o f honorables eligible for the more arduous and less rewarding service o f alcaldes de barrio. From the exultant Troncosos perspective, however, the sale benefitted the royal treasury and, paradoxically, increased the number o f men from whom he could select the alcaldes de barrio, as the town council would in future elect three rather than fourteen members each year.77 Troncosos letter o f triumph was perhaps a trifle premature, for it accompanied a new complaint from the city. Asuncions attempt to reopen the issue did move the king to send a new royal order in 1794, but only to confirm the previous decision and reiterate to the frustrated city council that the new officials were not an affront to their honor.78 Despite the official rebuff, it did not take long for proof that in ceding to the council on the question o f ceremony and reducing the threat o f the alcaldes de barrio to the citys status, the king and his council had rewarded the reformist governors o f Guatemala a rather Pyrrhic victory. The Crown was interested in better government, but did not wish the new alcaldes de barrio to truly become a parallel government, and
o f the 1793 royal cedula. The original cedula can be found at AGCA A 1.2 Leg. 2246 Exp. 16221. 77 AGI Guatemala 579, CapL Gral. Troncoso a SM, 4 January 1794, Guatemala. ,SAGCA Al.2.4, Leg 2246, RC, February 1794, Expedientes 16221 and 16224.
207
in 1794 again sided with the town council rather than the new officials on a question regarding the local theater to make the point.79 By 1798, a disgruntled Spanish alcalde de barrio had prepared a complaint of his own against the ayuntamiento. Jose Victoriano Retes and consortes, four other alcaldes de barrio who wished to be elected to the Guatemala City town council but found themselves repeatedly shunned, denounced the policy o f capitulares and their relatives who refused the lesser posts o f alcaldes de barrio, leaving these to Spaniards. This behavior both kept the more vaunted positions for themselves and their allies and ensured their continued local prestige at the expense o f those who served in the positions. 80 As well as impressive evidence of the interrelatedness o f the capitulares, Retes showed that 44 o f the 60 alcaldes de barrio who had actually served between 1793 and 1798 had been Spaniards.81 The town council quickly showed that in terms o f municipal service, amicable divisions between Creoles and Spaniards o f the tasks and positions in the council had been apportioned evenly since 1700, with the two groups alternating as mayors and syndics in a semi-official rotation called the altemativa .82 Among the arguments the city marshaled to discount Retes denunciation was that even he, like they, recognized
'9 AGI Guatemala 636, 1794. When the cabildo opposed the captain generals plan to open a theater in Asuncion, the Council o f the Indies supported the city government over the governor and his allies, the alcaldes de barrio. 80 The four other alcaldes de barrio are Lorenzo Menendez, Juan Antonio Araujo, Francisco Eceta and Mauro de Castro. AHN, Consejos 20983, Pieza 7, ff. 7-v. This document is also in AGCA, A 1.2 Leg. 43 Exp 1082. Another sympathetic to their cause is Sebastian Melon, picked by the city as 1803 syndic. 81 AHN Consejos 20983, Pieza 2. 9 May 1798. Certificacion de los alcaldes de barrio que ha avido desde la ereccion asta la presente, con distincion de los Espafioles Europeos y Americanos. See also AGCA A 1.2 Leg. 43, Exp. 1082.
208
that the post of alcalde ordinario demanded greater representation and authority, and that not all were apt to serve it.83 They did not explain why such eminently-qualified souls could not also take on the task o f policing the city, but the extensive list of resignations by the citys capitulares o f nominations to serve as alcaldes de barrio makes explicit the implication that such service was not honorable enough for them.84 Furthermore, the city fathers pointed out that Retes, like many other Spaniards resident in Guatemala, were only there temporarily and did not meet two o f the more important qualities o f a vecino, a permanent household and a bride. In the end, a cedula o f 1805 ordered the city to observe traditional laws which would increase the availability o f posts, most particularly by forbidding regidores to serve as alcaldes and enforcing the two year hiatus in between stints as alcalde. However, no further effort was expended to build up the attraction of the alcalde de barrio. In practice, the city had turned defeat into victory. The councils prestige remained unimpaired while the citys policia had nonetheless been augmented considerably.
82 A list of the mayors and syndics and their geographical origins between 1700-1802 can be found in AHN Consejos 20983, Pieza 2, ff. 273v-294 83 AHN Consejos 20983, Pieza 11, f. 7v. Ayuntamiento de Guatemala a SM, 29 August 1803. 84 In 1796, President Domas y Valle wrote to oidor Jacobo Villaurrutia to congratulate him on the colaboration ofJuan Jose Bamida and Antonio Tejada. AGCA A 1.50, Leg. 5344, Exp. 45054. Many more men who had served or who would serve on the council steadfastly refused to serve. In 1791, Miguel Ignacio Alvarez de Asturias, Ambrosio Taboada, and Pedro Aycinena resigned. In 1793, Mariano Najera refused a nomination, as did Jose Maria Pihol in 1796. Mariano Arrivillaga simply did not do his job. The resignations continued with Lorenzo Moreno (1799), Luis Vega and Pedro Jose Valenzuela (father)(1800), Benito Cividanes and Manuel de Jesus Vasquez (1802) and finally Felix Antonio Poggio (1806). AGCA A1.50 Leg. 42, Exp. 1028, 1038; Leg. 43, Exp. 1057, 1063, 1064, 1072; Leg. 44, Exp. 1098; Leg. 155 Exp. 3099; Leg. 5544, Exp. 45389, Leg. 5344, Exp. 45055, 45057.
209
It was another fifteen years before the city achieved final victory. During the supportive term o f Captain General Antonio Gonzalez Saravia, who more than shared the citys disgust with the audiencia o f the period, city and supremo gobiem o agreed in 1810 on the impossibility o f filling all the posts of alcalde de barrio with Espaftoles. With the audiencia down to two ministers, the time could not have been better to propose a change. In 1811, after consulting the priests o f the citys four parishes, Asuncion proposed a new plan authored by Father Dr Mariano Garcia (1762-1824), the priest o f Remedios parish. This plan redistricted the city into twelve barrios, which the twelve regidores o f the city would patrol and supervise as alcaldes de barrio, with the help o f auxiliares.85 Yet another change o f presidents , this time to the less accomodating Jose Bustamante (1811-1817), delayed implementation. So it was not until 1820 that the regidores o f Asuncion became its alcaldes de barrio, naming their own alcaldes auxiliares much as the alcaldes de quartel had previously selected their lieutenants.86 Restored to constitutional government, under a weakening Ferdinand VII, the city council o f Asuncion achieved its goal o f taking the increased responsibility for keeping order in the capital under its mantle. More about the impact o f the second Spanish constitutional period and subsequent independence o f Central America from Spain is discussed in the following chapters. What is important to know here is that this final innovation, which expanded considerably the councils ability to exercise real
85 AGCA A 1.2 Legajo 2189, Expediente 15737, f. 85. Libro de Cabildo, 1811. Session o f 17 June. 86 AGCA A1.50, Leg. 44, Exp. 1125; Leg. 219, Exp. 157. Libro de Cabildo, 1820. Session 29, 14 April, f. 29.
210
authority over its populations, took deep root and received no modification after independence, in civil war, under federation or Guatemalan government. The members o f Asuncions regimiento and justicia continued to assign in the first meeting o f each year the alcaldes de barrio o f the city, up to 16 in number by 1821, at least until 1850. They further took over in 1821 the approval o f the selection o f the auxiliares who would serve under each one. The reform conceived by a well-meaning audiencia to increase order and incorporate additional members o f the citys second-tier residents in the end simply concentrated power in the hands o f those who had controlled the institution that had always husbanded and exercised that power, the city council. After twenty years of direct and indirect resistance, the city council triumphed. The audiencia's initial attempt to combine administrative reform with an expansion of the elite power base was long forgotten, and the city had recuperated the powers lost with the initial reform, and through its auxiliares incorporated appropriate castas into the police system. Furthermore, if the Bourbon attempt to increase order and control in fact did succeed in the long run, the uniformity suggested by Robledos initial project, based on the alcaldes de barrio o f Madrid and Mexico became yet another example of localized adjustment, when implementation could only be affected after local concerns about prestige had been at least partially met, and met in terms o f traditional concerns over prestige and privilege. If not universally copied in Central America, nonetheless the benefits o f an extended body of ranking vecinos involved in policing the cities appealed to governors and cities outside the capital. In 1802, the alcalde mayor o f Quezaltenango suggested
211
establishing the institution in this Indian village.87 By 1805 alcaldes de barrio were being elected in the old capital, Antigua Guatemala and after independence the institution of alcaldes auxiliares chosen by the city councils was formally adopted into the state government.88 There were alcaldes de barrio in San Salvador by 181489, and in 1817, the mayors o f Sonsonate lamented that the alcalde mayor had not followed instructions o f the captain general to name alcaldes de barrio in this town, a measure they claimed was o f most urgent necessity to control the mostly Indian and ladino residents.90 Conclusion The intendancy as a unique form o f provincial government was intended to consolidate and rationalize the institutions o f local and regional government in Spains peninsular and overseas kingdoms. In terms o f fiscal policy, this reform succeeded in professionalizing and rendering more transparent the collection of Crown revenues. In terms of political change, however, the results were less clear. On the one hand, some intendancies, like that of San Salvador, which renamed provinces already under the administration o f one Spanish governor, found little to oppose in the new system.
87 AGCA A 1.50, Leg 197, Exp 3988. 88 See, for example, AGCA B119.4, Leg 2558, Exp 60140, f 3, 29 March 1831, in which the government o f Guatemala determined that the municipality o f San Miguel Petapa, not hacienda owners of Rosario and Fraijanes would name the alcaldes auxiliares o f Santa Ines Petapa. Apparently establishmnet o f such positions was not nationally enforced, because it was not until 1836 that the town o f Escuintla established its own alcaldes auxiliares (B119.4 Leg 2540, Exp 58611, f 13, 26 August 1836). The Guatemalan government did confirm, however, in on 11 January 1837 that these assistants still had no v o z y voto in the city council and were not members o f the ayuntam iento. (B119.2, Leg 2122, Exp 57029). 89 Archivo General de la Nacion (AGN, San Salvador), Caja 3, Seccion Antigua, Corresp Oflcial, 18131818, #s7 90 Alcaldes Ordinarios, Sonsonate, to Captain General (MYS), 20 August 1817, AMS, Caja 1810-21/3,
S o b re que el Ale. M r. Intento qua rtar la Jurisdiccion q. siem pre hart exercido los A lcaldes Ordirt.s d e este N.A. de 4 leguas...
212
Consolidated intendancies, like those o f Chiapas, Nicaragua and Honduras, however, served as proving ground for increasing localization of politics. Pretensions by newly important capitals, like Comayagua, to establish taxes on residents o f the entire province, were not well received. Even if the audiencia was determined to reject such impositions, usually promoted by the intendants who generally wanted to improve their capitals and their cash flow even if at the expense of the rest o f the province, the effect was to increase hostility to provincial capitals. The province o f San Salvador was used to having three city councils work in tandem and had a long-standing history of intermarriage and common interests. By 1786, it was too late to impose such unity on other areas. The tensions between Comayagua and Tegucigalpa provide one vivid example o f the error o f such forced political marriages, with the landowners and merchants of the former competing with the miners of the latter to extract the largest profit from the province. But the tensions were present elsewhere and would continue to surface throughout the last years o f Spanish rule and the first decades o f independence in the nineteenth century. The balance sheet of a century o f Bourbon management o f the apparatus of government was, then, in Central America one o f increasing interest in local government and insistence on regional autonomy. Despite opportunities provided in the ranks o f the tax collectors, governors and militias o f this economically declining backwater of the Spanish Empire, local landowners and merchants continued to seek out a place in the city councils reviving and creating on the coasts and in the interiors o f the mountainous provinces that made up the Kingdom o f Guatemala.
213
The Intendancies as a reform, if their intent had been to reduce the role o f city government in the government o f Central America, failed. If, however, as I believe, the goal was to increase the number of local governments to break the influence o f central authorities, both municipal and royal, then the failure was less in evidence. The Bourbons did not quite dare to dispense with the authority o f the captain general (or viceroy) and through other institutions, like the brand-new Consulado de Comercio (1793) undermined their decentralization by putting the merchants and hacendados o f Central America once again under the authority o f the merchants o f Asuncion. Nonetheless, the result o f the implementation o f the Bourbon reforms, from the 1750s onwards, was a steady revival o f the city council as a means o f governance and administration both for Spanish and non-Spanish communities alike. Indians, mestizos and mulattos were alternately bribed or coerced to take up city living. Abandoned Spanish cities like Truxillo and indifferent communities like Cartago and Comayagua found themselves repopulated with immigrant blood or incited to renew their interest in an active and effective cabildo by the efforts of energetic Spanish officials. Even small towns with a Spanish population received authorization, or, more accurately, an order to establish their own alcaldes and justice. Some, like Danli in Honduras quickly demonstrated that the tool was welcome and challenged the former municipal center to cede it substantial territory. The relationship between city and state, as well, retained familiar outlines as Spaniards and Americans faced the challenges of the nineteenth century remained in the same relationship as in prior centuries. When interests between municipal elites and
214
Crown-appointed governors coincided, there was little conflict. When interests collided, a series o f appeals, delays and other tactics delayed or impeded action. As in the cases o f establishing alcaldes de barrio in Asuncion or changing the Ordenanzas de Intendentes rules on mayoral elections, the city could still count on the Crown to weigh desired innovations and their purported benefits to royal government or finances against a history o f precedents, traditions and customs whose dividend was loyalty and continued interest in service to the Crown and participation in local, regional and imperial government. Yet the litigious and uncertain years o f Bourbon reforms implemented and withdrawn had taken their toll. In Asuncion, at least, the tensions that could arise when Spanish immigrants were either too numerous or too importunate to be taken into the best families became visible as part o f a political battle over government positions. In other areas, other population pressures o f economically advancing Spaniards o f questionable ancestry could divide over the timing and level o f the advance, as in the Yraeta case in San Vicente. The important point to remember, in all of this is that the jousting ground was the city council. Who would control it, what responsibilities it would take on willingly or unwillingly, and who would fund it. Both for Bourbon kings drafting legislation in Spain and Creole and Spanish elites adjusting their political lives to accommodate or resist, the city was a key institution whose importance grew and revived parallel to and urged on by a revived interest in government. As the Spanish empire shivered in the wake o f Napoleons invasion o f Spain in 1808, is it any wonder that in Spain and in the
215
Americas, Ferdinand VTTs loyal subjects came together to face the crisis in their cabildos and drafted a constitution that in 1812 created a new form o f municipal body hoped to be adequate to meet the changing requirements of the times? Figure 14: Map, Kingdom o f Guatemala, 1811
Source: L. H ebert, Spanish D om inions in N orth A m erica, Southern P a rt, in Modem G eography (London: J. Pinkerton, 1811). C ourtesy o f G eography a n d M ap D ivision, Library o f Congress.
216
Chapter 5 We ought only to obey our Mayors: City and State under a Constitutional Monarchy, 1809-1821 On the morning o f November 5, 1811, independence agitator Manuel Jose Arce climbed onto a stool at the comer o f the city hall o f San Salvador to cry, There is no king, nor Intendant, nor Captain General: we ought only to obey our Mayors.1 Three years had passed since Napoleon Bonaparte had claimed Spain as part o f his empire and both Peninsular Spain and its loyal American colonies, including Guatemala, were engaged in a military and political battle to restore the empires sovereignty. Yet, the political opening provided by an endangered empire also encouraged those with regional axes to grind to make their cases public. From 1811 to 1814, Central America experienced several rebellions, each centered around and involving a particular city. Over the course o f these four years, conspiracies surfaced in the capital, San Salvador, as well as in Tegucigalpa and Granada (Nicaragua) and demanded everything from greater political autonomy or participation within a Spanish framework, to independence from both Spain and Guatemala. But more was going on than local uprisings. At the same time, Spains new parliament was remaking the empire into a constitutional monarchy. And once again, reformersthis time drawn from both sides o f the Atlanticresolved to strengthen both provincial and municipal authority. The Constitution of Cadiz (1812) authorized adult Spanish and Indian males resident in any
1This cry is reported in Francisco J. Monterey, ed., Historia de El Salvador. Anotaciones Cronologicas, 1810-1842 Volume 1 (San Salvador: Universidad de El Salvador, 1996), p. 15.
217
town with 1000 residents or more to elect not just deputies to far-away parliaments, but also to their own town council, which was endowed with the same extensive powers and responsibilities previously reserved for Spanish cities. These same men would also elect deputies to provincial deputations, advisory bodies with members from each district o f a province or intendancy who were to provide advice and council to royallyappointed governors. Central Americans participated actively both in the drafting of and implementation o f the Spanish Constitution, as Mario Rodriguez explored in his book, The Cadiz Experiment in Central America, 1808-1826? This chapter explores how the political openings o f the interregnum o f 1808-1814 demonstrated the continuing reliance by Central American inhabitants on the city as a forum for political decision-making, both before and after the changes to the political system brought about by the Constitution o f 1812. It also shows how the Spanish refusal to recognize each province as a separate political entity until 1820 diminished the possibility for merged political interests within provinces. Combined with programs to extend municipal government to remote districts, this failure once again favored the continuance o f political action through the city. The political changes unleashed in Spain in 1808 began to impact the Kingdom o f Guatemala well before Manuel Jose Arces declaration, and equally long before the famous Cortes convened in 1810 in the Spanish port city o f Cadiz, one o f the few areas not then under French control. As leaders in peninsular Spain struggled to establish a
218
recognized interim government, they called, for the first time, for the overseas territories o f Spainrebaptized not the Indies but Ultramar, or overseas colonies to indicate their relation to the madre patria to participate in the new government. The first authority, the Suprema Junta Central, established in 1808, invited the Kingdom o f Guatemala as well as the rest o f the American territories, to elect a representative to sit on the council alongside representatives from the Spanish kingdoms. Since the only extant body representing local interests was the ayuntamiento, the regulations for elections for the Kingdoms deputy called for each incorporated city council to propose three names. A small boy would then draw one name from an urn, and that name would be sent on to the kingdom capital, Guatemala City, where the three men with the most votes would be submitted to an identical random selection. The individual selected would serve as the entire kingdoms representative to the Junta Central. 3 This precedent, depending both upon selection and chance, and involving a hierarchy o f cities, would color future elections procedures throughout the interregnum as well as into independence. It also underlined how leaders in Spain presumed that with the sovereignty o f the king in question, the sovereignty o f the Spanish people would return to the body politic o f the empireits pueblos, or municipalities.4
2 Mario Rodriguez, The C adiz Experim ent in C entral Am erica. 1808-1826 (Berkeley: U. California Press, 1978). 3 See AGI Guatemala 847 for the report on the election of the Kingdom o f Guatemalas representative to the Junta Central. The report was prepared by audiencia judge Alejandro Ramirez. 4 See Jose Carlos Chiaramonte, Ciudades P rovincias, Eslados: O rigenes de la Nacion Argentina ([Buenos Aires]: Editora Espasa Calpe, 1997), p. 121, for a discussion o f the same process in argentian. In this case, an Argentine Junta Conservadora explained in October 1811 that because o f the political orphanage o f Spain due to Ferdinand VIIs captivity, the p u eb lo s resumed the sovereign power, and a regulation was required to determine the manner in which to hear the cities as a political body.
219
News o f the innovation reached Guatemala City informally in early 1809 and immediately provoked a skirmish among leading families vying to fill three vacant seats on the council. When Francisco Batres, Miguel Ignacio Zepeda and Eusebio Arrivillaga sought to purchase the seats, the council opposed the sale. In the words o f the fiscal o f the audience, the opposition derived from intrigues and particular resentments between the applicants and some individuals in the ayuntamiento . Despite the exotic or illegal nature o f the councils protestsonly the king could deny the sale o f an office the imbroglio became a political scandal as the captain general sided with the council, and the audience rallied to support their regent, a young Mexican named Francisco Camacho, who insisted the sale should go through. In the end, Camacho was hustled out o f town and expelled from Guatemala by the captain general, and only one of the three men took his seat.5 The divisive scuffle showing the lack o f unity among the leading Guatemalan families was not the only result o f the affair. Five o f seven men who held permanent seats on the council resigned. Their motivation was partly to protest and partly to force a return to the system o f biennial elections o f aldermen that had worked extremely well in the 1780s and 1790s, both in terms o f circulating seats among the municipal elite and integrating Spanish immigrant and Creole resident into city politics (see Chapter 3). As a result, the Captain General called for the remaining council members to hold an election for the 10 vacant aldermens seats {regimientos).
5 AGI Guatemala 624, Letter of fiscal Yafiez to Secretario de Estado, Gracia y Justicia, Benito Ramon de Hermida, Guatemala, 21 June 1809. See also AGCA A1 Leg 2244, Exp 16176. On April 29, Captain General Gonzalez Saravia issued a provision ordering the eelections o f men of good qualities , and o f both classes of Spanish vecinos, europeans and americans, as per custom and following the royal dispositions o f 17 December 1787. Gonzalez Saravia characterized the election o f a deputy as the most
220
Three o f the four voting members left on the council voted unanimously to elect three o f the men who had resigned their permanent seats and seven new aldermen (the fourth was not present). As in the earlier elections, the 1809 Guatemala City municipal election respected the altemativa that had for over a hundred years balanced the number of Spaniards and Creoles on the council. Five o f the ten new regidores were Spaniards and five Creoles.6 The skirmish that developed in Guatemala City in early 1809 over control o f the city council underlines how quickly and completely contemporaries realized the importance o f the city council, not just for local administration, but as an important political player in the Spanish monarchy. In short order, fourteen cities around the kingdom o f Guatemala also organized to participate in the selection o f Guatemalas representative to the Suprema Junta Central, Manuel Jose Pavon y Mufioz. Nor did these cities believe their responsibility stopped with an election. When the delegate did not leave for Spain because the Junta was dissolved, five o f the most important councils joined to petition for his acceptance into the Consejo Supremo that replaced it.7
serious and important act ever offered or that could be offered to these illustrious bodies (cuerpos ), i.e. the city councils. 6 AGCA A1 Leg 2244, Exp 16176. Creoles Antonio Juarros, Manuel Jose de Lara, and Miguel Ignacio Alvarez de Asturias and Spaniards Jose Antonio Castanedo and Miguel Jacinto Marticorena resigned their seats. On May 2, new elections were held by the remaining members o f the town council for the ten of 12 regimiento vacancies. Mayor Gregorio Urruela (Spanish) and regidores Jose Maria Peinado and Antonio Isidro Palomo (Creoles) selected the following ten men to serveCreoles Vicente Aycinena y Carrillo, 2nd Marques o f Aycinena, Antonio Juarros, Luis Francisco Banutia, Miguel Ygnacio de Asturias, and Manuel Jose Pavon, and Spaniards Miguel Jacinto Marticorena, Jose Ysasi, Miguel Gonzalez, Sebastian Melon and Juan Antonio Aqueche. The citys second mayor, Pedro Jose Arrivillaga (Creole) was not present. 7 Xiomara Avendano Rojas, Procesos Electoralesy Close Politico en la Federacion de Centroamerica, 1810-1840.," PhD thesis, Colegio de Mexico, 1994, pp. 39-42; and Archivo Municipal de Tegucigalpa (AMT), Libro de Actas Municipales, 1801-1832, 22 May 1809. Tegucigalpa elected lawyer Jose Cecilio del Valle, who resided in Guatemala City and drafted the 1821 declaration o f independence o f the
221
In this initial political upheaval, three important precedents had been set that would color the political developments o f the next decade and beyond. First, Spain had accepted the principle o f including American representation in national government. Second, leaders in Spain and in the overseas territories took for granted that the innovations o f an unprecedented kingless era would achieve legitimacy through involving the town council. Third, city councils would take the lead in responding to political developments, working alone, in concert, and with Spanish officials to respond to change. Thus, even before official notification o f the assignment o f new responsibilities o f the kingdoms ayuntamientos could cross the Atlantic, residents assumedcorrectly as it turned outthat the body that would be called upon to represent local interests in a changing political environment was that o f the traditional representative o f the republica, the town council, and they moved rapidly to participate. In the case o f Guatemala City, the move to ensure the fullest possible participation the filling o f empty positionsfurther indicated that elite council members found the idea o f at least a limited democratic city council a welcome way to meet the needs of competing groups to participate in important political decisions. It also showed that such political experimentation that they believed was appropriate, was centered on the city council. Whatever form change would take, it would be approached through the body recognized as the representative of the people: the republic.
Kingdom o f Guatemala. Valle was a native of Choluteca, a Spanish town within the alcaldia mayor o f Tegucigalpa. The other two candidates were Tegucigalpa natives, cabildante Francisco San Martin and lawyer Mnuel Lorenzo Rosa. Sonsonate, Comayagua, Granada and Guatemala had chosen Alejandro Ramirez, a Spaniard and founder and member of the Real Sociedad Economica. The man elected in the lottery, however, was Manuel Jose Pavon y Munoz, a lawyer and landowner of the capitaline elite who
222
The atmosphere o f possibility unleashed by the new forms o f government in Spain led to unprecedented levels of municipal activity, some o f it directed at supporting the Spanish war effort and demonstrating loyalty to the Spanish empire, and some of it taking advantage o f the political confusion to advance local agendas through agitation and even uprising. In the period between 1809 and 1812, when political practices began to change but there was not yet a new political system to replace the one shattered by Napoleons invasion, authorities in Spain paid close attention to political developments in the Americas, and helped where they could to keep traditional tensions between Spanish officials and local residents from escalating at a time when there was little capability o f using the threat of force as a deterrent. When ceremonies celebrated the swearing o f loyalty to each new type of political authority, the cabildos took center stage along with royal officials, clerics and military officers to represent the communitys acquiescence.8 Thus when the enthusiastic city council o f Guatemala volunteered to print and distribute, to all the cities and villas o f its district, one o f the Junta Suprema's decrees, only to be prevented by a censor (juez de imprenta) concerned that his own authority was being undermined, the Regency, in 1810, determined to champion the city council.9 Such support both reaffirmed the legitimacy
had long served in the Guatemala City town council. In 1811, Guatemala, Comayagua, Sonsonate, Granada and Leon sought to have Pavon y Munoz accepted as a member o f the Consejo Supremo. 8 In some cases, the decision to swear an oath was hotly debated. In Guatemala City, for example, the shift from a Junta Central to a Consejo Supremo, which initially had no American representatives, unleashed a fierce discussion in the cabildo on the legitimacy of the new authority. See Avendano, Procesos Electorales y Clase Politica, pp. 41-42. AGI Guatemala 625, Consulta, 20 June 1810. The Spanish authorites chastised the juez de imprenta for seeking to stop the ayuntamiento from circulating one o f its decrees, stating that no one was prevented from cummunicating its enlightened and patriotic thoughts to benefit the public (causa publica).
223
o f the council as a political body, with responsibilities far beyond those o f local administration, and signaled that acts o f loyalty would be supported in the metropolis. In addition to serving as the core o f local politics that accepted and adapted to change, city politics proved an ideal center for the series o f revolts that gently rocked, but never developed significantly enough to threaten the integrity of, the Kingdom o f Guatemala. Between 1811 and 1814, uprisings occurred in several principal city centers, and an independence-planning conspiracy was forestalled in Guatemala City after the captain generals agent infiltrated the plotters group. The town council was either the instigator or the object in each o f these revolts. Each case reflected local grievances. In San Salvador, prominent clerics and cabildantes agitated for political and ecclesiastical autonomy from kingdom capital Guatemala, set off in part by poor relations with their intendant, in part by poor relations with resident Spaniards, and in part by the arrest o f their associate and relative, the priest Manuel Aguilar. In November 1811, the council, supported by the alcaldes de barrio, stoned the houses o f Spaniards. Then, a new council, selected by the traditional one but then approved by the Spanish vecinos and honorable mulatos o f the city, named a new intendant, a Guatemala City Creole working as royal treasurer, Jose Mariano Batres, and a new military commander, the San Salvadoran Jose Aguilar.10 In
10 COI Resumen, 1817?, AGI Guatemala S02 informed on the origins o f the 1811 San Salvador uprising in the arrest of priest D Manuel Aguilar and the 1814 upset was set off by misunderstanding o f some Cortes documents by the San Salvador city council. See also Monterey, Historia de El Salvador, pp. 1519, for a detailed accounting o f the revolt, including San Salvador's convocation o f the rest of the town councils of the province and to that o f Leon, Nicaragua, demanding the return o f natural and civil rights usurped 300 years ago. In this text, attributed to Manuel Jose Arce, it is the pueblo, upset at the arrest of their priest, that rises up, and the city council that mediates, naming Bernardo de Arce, a regidor, mayor,
224
Granada and its neighboring villas, Masaya and Rivas, cabildantes summoned open town meetings (cabildos abiertos) and called for the replacement o f all Spanish officials. In Leon, city councilors overthrew the Spanish intendant (December 1811April 1812). In Tegucigalpa, mulatto artisans spearheaded a local movement that insisted on recognizing the December 1811 municipal elections as valid and sought a greater role in local government in cooperation with Creole but not Spanish-born elites (January-March 1812).1 1 Although making political claims relevant to the 1810s, most o f these uprisings shared more characteristics with the issue-specific revolts that broke out throughout Spanish America during the Bourbon Reform period than with independence movements.12 As Captain General Jose de Bustamante reported in 1820, the uprisings in San Salvador, Leon and Granada shared the same characteristics o f deposing their intendants, setting up their own gubernatorial councils, and seeking the abolition o f the import tax monopoly (estanco de aduanas). 13 They also shared the assumption that in times o f political change, sovereignty, or the right to determine
and convoking the alcaldes principales to settle things. During the process, an entirely new town council was elected, and put to the vecinos E spanoles y m ulatos honrados to approve. 1 1 Luis Pedro Taracena, Ilusion m in e r a y p o d e r p o litico : la alcaldia m a yo r d e Tegucigalpa, Siglo X V III, (Tegucigalpa: Ediciones Guaymuras, 1998); and MA thesis, pp. 296-304 treats the 1812 uprising o f Tegucigalpa. Taracena reports that subdelegado d e hacienda Antonio Tranquilino Rosa convinced outgoing mayors, inlcuding his nephew-in-law Jose Serra, not to turn over the council to the 1812 mayors to prevent uprisings. The m ulatos and Indians o f the annexed town o f Comayaguela both demanded the switch, and were appeased after priests Juan Franco Pineda and Juan Afrancisco Marquez negotiated the installation o f the elected council. Captain General Bustamante, adviced by Tegucigalpa native Jose Cecilio del Valle, determined that the locally suppressed revolt had been resolved, and to ensure future tranquility named the priest Marquez temporary a lca ld e m ayor. Sargent Major Pedro Gutierrez, sent with troops to repress the revolt, remained as the military chief o f the reestablished a lcaldia m ayor, so that the hint o f repression accompanied the political gift o f autonomy. 1 2 See Chapters 3 and 4 for a discussion o f revolt during the late eighteenth century. 1 3 AGI Guatemala 502. Bustamante 18 September 1814, per Resumen o f the Council o f Indies.
225
political future, devolved to the pueblos that had given their sovereignty to the king.14 However, there was no attempt to coordinate these uprisings into a regional movement. Each city appealed to its smaller neighbors within its province to unite with it, but did not perceive o f or represent their movement as national. At most, one city like San Salvador might appeal to another city, like Leon, but without reaching out to all the districts of the Kingdom of Guatemala. Each movement relied upon the loss o f agreed central authority and a moment o f political opportunity to advance local agendas, but in a time when greatly increased opportunities existed for political representation and advancement within the Spanish political system abounded, the maneuvering seemed to demand greater autonomy within the system rather than withdrawal from it. The means o f dealing with these conflicts reflected the bedrock role o f the city council as arbiter o f local political developments. In the San Salvador case, the city councils o f San Vicente and Santa Ana signed statements protesting the movements against Spanish officials in San Salvador; San Miguels cabildo had the hangman bum the invitation to join the movement in the city plaza. Smaller towns without full councils contented themselves with notes signed by prominent residents repudiating the movement (Metapan) or by serving as informants o f the captain general (Zacatecoluca). Repression of the affair was also municipal. Within two weeks, the military squadrons
1 4 See Jose Carlos Chiaramonte, Ciudades Provincias, Estados: Origenes de la Nacion Argentina ([Buenos Aires]: Editora Espasa Calpe, 1997), p. 121, for a discussion o f the same process in argentian. In this case, an Argentine Junta Conservadora explained in October 1811 that because o f the political orphanage of Spain due to Ferdinand VTIs captivity, the pueblos resumed the sovereign power, and a regulation was required to determine the manner in which to hear the cities as a political body.
226
o f the towns o f San Vicente, San Miguel and Sonsonate were en route to suppress the revolt.1 5 Guatemala City, as capital o f the kingdom, demonstrated significant interest in taking a hand in peacefully resolving the issues at hand. In 1811, the capitals ayuntamiento sent its own negotiator, regidor Jose Maria Peynado, along with former regidor Col. Jose de Aycinena, named by Captain General Jose de Bustamante to serve as interim governor o f San Salvador, to bring the city back into the kingdoms political fold through negotiation with the erring municipality. When Aycinena left to serve in the Council o f State in Spain, Peynado took his place and won the local elites over to the point that in 1812 he was elected mayor o f San Salvador.16 In 1813, the ayuntamiento o f Guatemala City also asked the Spanish government to pardon the rebels o f Granada, although in this instance, their influence was not enough to achieve their goal.1 7 Other cities, too, could demonstrate that in the Kingdom o f Guatemala, loyalty (or, at a minimum, the belief that there was slim chance of a successful revolt) was stronger than dissatisfaction. In 1814, no town rose in support o f provincial capital San Salvadors second attempt to achieve political independence and a bishopric. Instead, ayuntamientos from district capitals San Miguel, Santa Ana and San Vicente, and even
1 5 Monterey, Historia de El Salvador, p. 19. Among the signers o f the various declarations were: Metapan: Juan de Dios Mayorga, Pbro. Manuel Jose Escobar, Lie. Mariano Francisco Gomez, Florencio Arbizu; Santa Ana: Pbro. Jose Mariano Mendez, Bartolome Jose Tellez, Padre Cura Manuel Ignacio Carcamo, Francisco Diaz Castillo; San Vicente: Jose Maria de Hoyo and Manuel Jimenez Basurto. 1 6 For Peynados explanation o f why he accepted the nomination as mayor, see his letter o f 7 January 1812, AGCA A l. Leg. 2244, Exp. 16179. TTus story is fully detailed in Mario Rodriguez, The Cadiz Experiment. Much o f Peynados correspondence regarding the intricacies o f the political situation in San Salvador can be found in AGN, Seccion Antigua, Caja 1.
227
the neighboring but politically separate town o f Sonsonate, wrote to the captain general reiterating their loyalty to the government and offering to help any troops the capital might dispatch to put down the revolt.
t 0
In Nicaragua, Rivas and Potosi rallied to
Leons movement, but the other towns o f the province did not.19 Furthermore, while Bustamante sent troops to bring order back to Nicaragua, it was a brokered negotiation that agreed to return the deposed town council to office and selected an acceptable intendant that brought about a peaceful end to the standoff.20 As Comayaguas deputy to the Spanish Cortes wrote in 1813, asking the authorities to reward that city council for its decision in an October 1810 meeting not to support a call to revolution. There were dispositions on the part o f the pueblos [of Guatemala] to shelter the suggestions o f the revolutionaries, he wrote, .. .but once the ayuntamiento had signaled the steps that anticipated those o f the revolution, the anxiety o f the government dissipated.21 In other words, without the support o f the provincial capital, royal officials fear o f an important uprising vanished. The intendant, Juan Antonio Tomos agreed with this analysis o f the ayunatmiento's symbolic power, when he informed the Regency in August 1813 that, with only 24 soldiers in the province, he had managed to keep the peace by maintaining a strong working relationship with
1 7 AGI Guatemala 533. 1 8 Monterey, Historia de El Salvador, pp. 21-22. 19 Monterey, Historia de El Salvador, p. 23. 20 Xiomara Avendano, Procesos Electorales y Clase Politica, p. 44. 21 AGI Guatemala 533, Jose Francisco Morejon, Diputado por la provincia de Honduras en el Reyno de Guathemala (sic) las Cortes, 16 January 1813, Cadiz. The Overseas Ministry responded by instructing the Captain General to inform the council o f the Regencys appreciation on 8 February.
228
Comayaguas ayuntamiento.22 The tranquility o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala depended on the willingness o f the cities o f the isthmus to remain loyal and commit their local militias to ensure that their peers did as well. The elites were not the only members o f Central American society who believed that uncertain times called for change, including more participation in municipal government. Excluded sections o f the population began to demand inclusion in city politics, and acted as did the elite: through negotiation and revolt. By 1811, communities o f Spaniards and ladinos without a city government, like that of Tuxtla, in the province o f Chiapas, began to clamor for official status.23 In November of 1811, in the town o f Metapan (San Salvador), the Indian mayor Andres Flores, a negro Jose Agustin Alvarado and several others demanded the end o f various taxes and monopolies {alcabala, tabacos, aguardiente), stoned the liquor factory and house o f the Spanish mayor, Jorge Guillen de Ubico, and replaced Ubico with a new mayor, Jose Antonio Hernandez. Several other Indian towns, including Sensuntepeque, also rose to support San Salvador.24 In Tegucigalpa, in January o f 1812, for example, a mulatto nicknamed Toto Longo led an uprising o f that towns pleve. In addition to demanding the resignation o f Spanish-bom officials from municipal and royal offices and the immediate installation o f the duly elected city council for that year, the organizers also engineered the selection o f five mulattos, one from each o f the citys neighborhoods
AGI Guatemala 533, Juan Antonio Tomos to regency, 11 August 1813. Tomos wrote o f his relations with two a y u n ta m ie n to s meaning the original cabildo in office upon his arrival, and its constitutional successor, as we shall see below. 24 AGI Guatemala 62, Vecinos de Tuxtla, 1811. 24 Monterey, Historia de El Savador, pp. 21-2.
229
{barrios) to serve on the cabildo with vozy voto voice and votelike the councils traditional elite members. From existing reports it is unclear whether Toto Longo was working for certain members o f the local Creole elite or whether the populace acted on its own and later allied with a few Creole families to stave off military reprisals. It is however likely that the three elected council members who had been denied their seats were in some way involved.25 Whether la plebe demanded its own representatives or the right to influence the selection o f local authorities, it nonetheless coalesced its demands around the one institution that had local, regional and imperial political authority: the town council. Just as the communities o f Central America reacted in a variety o f ways to the political uncertainty of the times, so too did those in the rest o f the Americas and also Spain. Authorities in the metropolis responded by seeking to unify and coordinate a united response to Bonaparte, both in terms o f military resistance and establishment o f a new basis for government. The Kingdom of Guatemala & the Cortes of C idiz The interregnum of 1808-1814 brought about the first comprehensive overhaul o f Spanish government since the medieval Reconquest. If the Bourbon reformers had proposed to establish a universal and uniform system o f provinces governed by
25 Francisco Gardela, Diario de lo ocurrido en Tegucigalpa el 6 de En.o y siguiente hta. 7 de Febrero con motivo qe. no admitio la Plebe a D. Josef Rosa de comisionado, y pensar qe. venian tropas," 7 February 1812, Tegucigalpa. AGN, Seccion Antigua, Caja 1, Folder 2. The mulatos full name was Josef Antonio Davila. After 3 meetings on January 29 and 30, the p le b e despite internal dissensions, chose alcaldes m ulatos con v o z y voto en el cabildo : Rafael Estrada (la Plazuela); Manuel Lagos (la Joya), Josef Antonio Davila (la Merced), Antonio Catalan (los Dolores), and Luis Carias (la Ronda). According to Luis Pedro Taracena, Ilusion m in e ra y p o d er politico , pp. 297-298, the three new members of the town council were
230
intendants, they had not envisaged a rupture in the traditional role o f the king and his ministers as lawmakers and the rest of the Spanish public as implementers o f those laws, with varying scope to appeal specific provisions. In a more uncertain age, with the French and Haitian Revolutions and insurgency in Mexico and South America to serve as example and warning, a new generation o f Spanish politicians succeeded in redefining the Spanish political system, from the abstract relationship o f king to people to the very concrete organization of city government. A new set o f legislators and representatives took the Bourbon goal o f uniformity and began to apply it through a new mechanism, a constitutional assembly (Cortes), with both constructive and disruptive results. After Ferdinand VTIs forced resignation in 1808, Napoleon Bonaparte named his brother Joseph the new King of Spain. Although Joseph made alliances with elements o f the Spanish elite and promulgated a fairly liberal constitution (Bayonne, 1808), most o f the Spanish peninsula rose to fight a king perceived o f as a usurper. Those loyal to the beloved Ferdinand VH faced, as a key challenge, the need to establish a government that would be recognized by the numerous independent juntas set up locally to stave off the French. After it became clear that the Suprema Junta Central (1808-1809) was not adequate to the task a regency convened, and determined to call a meeting o f the Spanish Cortes, or parliament. Traditionally, the Cortes had been made up o f representatives o f the estates, cities and kingdoms o f Peninsular Spain, but in the early 1800s it was clear that to exclude the overseas territories o f the empire would
mayors Jose Manuel Marquez, the twin o f the priest who negotiated the peace, and Joaquin Espinoza and
231
flame separatist sentiments that Spain was in no position to extinguish. The new Cortes thus included representatives from both the Peninsula and its overseas territories. This Cortes was convoked with the express purpose of establishing a new and explicit constitution for the management o f Spanish politics in answer to that o f Bayonne. In the absence o f the king and in the context o f a full-fledged civil war, in an era when the concept o f national rather than monarchical sovereignty was fast taking root, such a convocation could only produce revolutionary results. Between 1810 and 1812, deputies from all parts o f the Spanish empire wrangled and debated, and despite disagreements over the scope o f change, in March 1812, produced a constitution Constitution politico de la monarquia espanolathat vested sovereignty principally in the nation and enshrined democratic processes in everything from election o f Cortes deputies to elected city and provincial councils.26 The Constitution was in effect from 1812 to 1814, when Ferdinand VII abrogated it after reclaiming his throne. It took effect once again when in 1820 turmoil within Spain convinced the same king that reviving the constitutional monarchy could help save his throne and overseas territories that had not yet achieved independence.
syndic Miguel Eusebio Bustamante. All three were Creoles, and Espinoza and Marquez were cousins. 26 For an extensive discussion o f the Cortes o f Cadiz, particularly the divisions between Spanish and American deputies, see Marie Laure Rieu-Millan, L os D iputados A m ericanos en la s Cortes d e C adiz (Madrid: CSIC 1990); Manuel Chust, La cuestion nacional am ericana en las C o rtes d e C adiz (Valencia: Centro F.T. y Valiente UNED, 1999); and Mario Rodriguez, The Cadiz E xperim ent. For a discussion of the men who supported Joseph Bonaparte, see Miguel Artola, L o s A francesados (Madrid: Sociedad de Estudios y Publicaciones, 1953). For a discussion o f politics throughout the reign o f Ferdinand VII, see again Miguel Artola, La E sp a n a de F ernando V ll (Madrid: Espasa, 2nd ed., 1999). For a good English introduction to the period, see Timothy Anna, Spain a n d the L oss o f Am erica (Lincoln: U. o f Nebraska Press, 1983).
232
Central American Constitutional Approaches In 1810, town councils across the Kingdom of Guatemala elected the first group o f Cortes deputies. Thus, it was through the town council that political agendas o f the interregnum were developed, as each town prepared instructions and guidelines for its representative. The most well-known set o f instructions from this era are those written by Jose Maria Peynado, a permanent member of the Guatemala City town council, as the primary author o f this citys instructions to its representative at Cadiz, Father Antonio Larrazabal. Peynados Instrucciones para la constitution fundamental de la Monarquia Espanola y su gobiemo (1811) were in fact a draft constitution, written even as the deputies in Cadiz were beginning deliberations on their own document. Working with regidor and former mayor Antonio Juarros, Peynado composed the instructions in the house of regidor and lawyer Manuel Jose Pavon. The drafters drew from their own experience, and also benefited from the insights of Nicaraguan attorney Miguel Larreynaga and cleric Bernardo Pavon, Manuel Joses brother.27 As a collaborative effort o f Guatemalas educated and liberal elite, the instructions provide a clear example o f the Guatemalan elites initial vision o f a constitutional society. Much like the Spanish constitution eventually adopted in 1812, Peynados Instrucciones envisioned a monarchical system with an active Cortes whose membership derived from Spanish communities from all the territories o f the Spanish empire. Peynados instructions were also clearly influenced by the French Declaration
27 Cesar Braiias, Larrazabal y Peinado: Las Instrucciones, brujula en el tumultuoso mar de las Cortes de Cadiz,p. xi, in Jose Maria Peynado, Instrucciones para la constitution fundamental.
233
of the Rights o f Man.28 However, Peynados approach to a new constitutional order presumed the continuation o f the political organization in which only those o f pure Spanish descent controlled political office. Peynado did not suggest that the town council become a democratic body in his own work, assuming that the traditional system o f office-holding would not be tampered with. However, he continued to conceive o f the council as the representative of the political will of the people in a constitutional monarchy. In his articles 34-36, Peynado suggested that elections o f members o f the national government, specifically a member of a Supreme Central Junta, would be done through an indirect election in which each ayuntamiento o f a province would send electors to the provincial capital to vote.29 When the Cortes had formed a political catechism, the ayuntamiento would share responsibility along with provincial councils (juntas) to ensure that children learned its maxims.30 These provincial councils would be made up o f members elected for five-year terms by the ayuntamientos o f each province. O f the two members named by each council, one
28 Captain General Jose de Bustamante in 1814 sent an annotated copy of the Instrucciones to Spain, pointing out article by article the French inspiration for many of Peynados articles. Bustamante made these annotations in a successful attempt to get the Instrucciones banned by the returned sovereign, but found himelf three years later removed from his position as the Spanish government reconsidered the decision and returned honors to Peynado and the other members o f Guatemalas town council who had been stripped o f their positions in the wake o f Bustamantes charges. Mario Rodriguez comments on this battle appear in Chapter 5, The C adiz Experim ent in C entral Am erica. 29 Jose Maria Peynado, Instrucciones p a ra la constitucidn fu n d a m e n ta l d e la M onarquia E spanola y su g o b ie m o (1811). Originally printed in Cadiz at the request of Larrazabal, the Instrucciones were later collected and burned by Captain General Jose Bustamante y Guerra, who convinced the returned king Ferdinand VII o f their treasonous content. The copy commented in Bustamantes original hand, which correlates articles o f Peynados text with those of the French Declaration of the Rights o f Man and Constitutions, was the basis o f an edition printed in Guatemala in 1953 with the title, Instrucciones pa ra
la constitucidn fu n d a m e n ta l de la M onarquia E spanola y su G obiem o. d e que ha d e tratarse en las proxim as Cortes G enerales de la nacion dadas p o r e l M.I. Ayuntam iento de la M. N.. y L. C iu d a d de G uatem ala a su d iputado el Sr. Dr. D. A ntonio d e Larrazabal, C andnigo penitenciario d e esta Sta. Iglesia M etropolitana (Guatemala: Editorial del Ministerio de Educacion Publica, 19S3).
234
would be a capitular while the other could be another member o f the council or simply a vecino .3I When a governor or captain general died or needed to be replaced, it would be this junta that would name a temporary successor because it united the voice o f all the ayuntamientos. 32 An individual opposing a decision o f the junta was required to register a complaint through his or her town council.33 Although provincial councils would exist, their work would depend on the cooperation of the traditional centers o f power: the city councils. Three years later, when attempting to convince the restored monarch o f the seditious nature of these instructions, Captain General Jose de Bustamante convinced the Spanish authorities that the instructions exalt the ayuntamientos, giving them privileged and extensive faculties and depriving the king of his royal prerogatives {regalias) in provision o f employment and even the right to convoke and close the Cortes.34 Cooler heads reasoned in 1817 that the intent was not to upset the state (trastomar el estado) but to give the ayuntamientos more extensive faculties, particularly in economic and administrative affairs.j5 Certainly, deputy Larrazabal had been true to his instructions, arguing for perpetuation o f the traditional system o f
30 Peynado, Instrucciones p a r a la constitucion fu n d a m en ta l. Article 62. 31 Peynado, Instrucciones p a r a la constitucion fu n d a m en ta l. Article 68-71. 32 Peynado, Instrucciones p a r a la constitucion fu n d a m en ta l. Article 74. En el casodel fallecimiento del virrey, presidente o gobemador, o de faita de estos jefes por alguna otra causa, tendra la junta que reune en si la voz de todos los ayuntamientos, facultad de nombrarlo interinamente... 33 Jose Maria Peynado, In strucciones p a r a la constitucion fu n d a m en ta l, Article 88. ... y en caso de algun individuo las reclame ocurrira primero a su Ayuntamiento, ya preresentacion de este se reveran por la misma junta que en estos casos debera ser plena, y quedara sancionada la resolucion. 34 AGI Guatemala 502, Resumen. 35 AGI Guatemala 502, Resumen.
235
purchase o f council seats and closed elections in the face o f arguments by other American deputies for a more representative body.36 Peynados Instrucciones was also the first document in Central America to refer to cities as municipalidades, a term that implied a new uniformity to be applied to all towns in the kingdom.37 The term was not picked up by the Cortes, and it was only in 1825, when the first National Assembly met, that the hierarchy o f city, town and place was formally replaced with the egalitarian municipality, while at the same time the other terminology o f the French revolution was applied to provinces, renamed departments.38 It is interesting to note that Peynado conceived o f the regional juntas as gubernatorial bodies which, because they represented the ayuntamientos o f each province, had the authority to act within their jurisdiction in every administrative responsibility. These responsibilities included: finance, administration (policia ), war, promotion o f agriculture, industry, the arts, and commerce; education and all concerning the progress, happiness and tranquility o f the inhabitants (moradores) o f which it was the head {de que es cabeza).39 If Peynado was not innovative in reshaping the organization o f city life, he anticipated a federal system that devolved all political
36 Roger L. CunnifF, Mexican Municipal Electoral Reform, 1810-1822, in Nettie Lee Benson, ed.,
M exico a n d th e Spanish Cortes. 1810-1822, (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1968), p. 66. Larrazabal
argued that elected councilmen would be unable to remain in office long enough to gain the experience necessary for efficient service. 37 Peynado, Instrucciones p a ra la constitucion fu n d a m e n ta l d e la M onarquia E sp a n o la y su g o b ie m o (1811), Article 90. 38 Peter Sahlins, B oundaries: th e m aking o f F ra n ce a n d Spain in the P yrenees, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), p. 168. In 1789, France organized its former quilt o f provinces into departments. 39 Peynado, Instrucciones p a ra la constitucion fu n d a m en ta l. Article 81.
236
decision-making to a locally elected body, rather than an executively-appointed individual. The Diputacion Provincial The Constitution did, in fact, establish a body called the diputacion provincial. which was to be made up of seven elected representatives from designated regions within a political district ( Constitucion Politico, Title 6, Chapter 2, Arts. 325-337). Spanish historian Manuel Chust has called the diputacion provincial the genesis o f federalism, arguing that the establishment o f several o f these bodies in each viceroyalty fragmented the power of the viceroy.41 In effect, however, they were no more atomizing than the establishment o f intendancies decades previously, and in fact consolidated several. At the Cortes, the definition o f province, that is, the territory that would have its own diputacion, was a matter o f heated debate. Guatemalas representative, Antonio Larrazabal, pointed out that although it was one o f the least extensive American kingdoms, Guatemala encompassed a territory greater than that o f Spain, and that assigning Spain 16 diputaciones provinciales and only two or three to Guatemala was unfair. It would also entail significant, difficult, costly and timeconsuming travel for electors and deputies. Larrazabal, as well as other American deputies, also argued that fixing the number o f deputies for each diputacion at seven was too constrictive, especially when the provinces involved had a greater number o f counties (partidos) than deputies. When Spanish deputies recommended establishing
40 Peynado, Instrucciones para la constitucion fundamental. Article 81.
237
an extremely reduced number o f diputaciones in the Americas (15 compared to the 42 for the Peninsula), representatives from Guatemalas slighted districts Florencio Castillo for Nicaragua and Costa Rica, Francisco Morejon for Honduras (Comayagua), and Mariano Robles for Chiapasdemanded a diputacion provincial for each o f their provinces. 42 Initially allocated only one diputacion provincial (DP), the Kingdom o f Guatemala was allotted two after the American interventions in Cadiz. The first was located in Guatemala City, and responsible for Chiapas, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, and the second in Leon, with responsibility for Nicaragua and Costa Rica. After repeated petitions, the Americas and Philippines were finally authorized a separate diputacion for each intendancy in May 1821. The news reached the kingdom of Guatemala in August o f the same yeartoo lateat the moment o f independence. Although the Amigo de la Patria printed the news with pleasure as a gift to America in general, and to Comayagua, San Salvador and Chiapas in specific, the consequences of denying provincial representation to the intendancies had already been made clear.43
4 1 Chust, L a cuestion n a cio n a l am ericana en las Cortes de Cadiz, p. 218-244. Chust bases his position on work by Nettie Lee Benson on the d iputacion p ro vin c ia l in Mexico, where the 6 d iputaciones p rovinciates created by the Cortes were expanded by the Mexicans in independence to 22. 42 Diario de Sesiones de Cortes, 13 January 1812, p. 2607. See Manuel Chust, L a cuestion na cio n a l am ericana , p. 221 -231, for discussion o f these debates. Florencio Castillo in fact argued for a diputacion p rovin cia l that would include Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Comayagua (Honduras), which is very close to the decision taken by the Cortes. 43 E l A m ig o d e la P atria, 7 August 1821, No 14 in Escritos d el L icenciado Jo se C ecilio d e l Valle, vol. 2 (Guatemala: Ministerio de la Educacion Publica, 1969), p. 13S.
238
The Constitution provided that the same system of parish voting used to elect Cortes deputies was used for the deputies of the diputacion.44 This institution was, on paper, meant to be an advisory board that could represent local and regional interests to the captain general and intendants. However, Central Americas two diputaciones acted to increase the scope o f their powers and chafed at restrictions enforced by imperial agents. Friction was particularly strong during the first constitutional period, when Captain General Bustamante not only delayed the 1813 installation o f the Guatemala diputacion on grounds that seemed specious to that citys leading residents, but also blocked that bodys attempts to take certain decisions.45 Under the more lenient Captains General Carlos Urrutia and Gabino Gainza, the 1820 diputacion, initially staffed by its original 1814 members, a more fruitful relationship developed. According to Chusts argument that the establishment o f the diputacion provincial represented a step towards federalism, that is, an interest in limiting the authority of the center, Central America clearly had proto-federalist leanings. Leon in Nicaragua used the diputacion to further an agenda o f decreasing the influence and power o f the distant
44 See C onstitucion P olitico d e la m onarquia espanola, Title 3, Chapters 2 and 3 for voting procedures based on a sytsem of ju n ta s electorates held at the parish (parroquia ), district (p a rtid o ) and provincial (provincia ) level. The junta electoral de parroquia was comprised of all a parishs vecinos; each ju n ta p a rro q u ia l would elect 11 com prom isarios who would name the electora p a rro q u ia I who would represent that parish at the ju n ta d e partido. which met in the cabeza, or district capital (Articles 35,41). This body elected the electoifs) who would represent the district in the election in the capital o f the province (Article 59). In the case of deputies to the Cortes, each district would elect three tunes as many electors as the district had deputies to name (Article 63). The ju n ta p r o v in c ia l would have a minimum o f 5 electors (Article 83) who would vote individually for the deputy or deputies to be elected. An absolute majority was required for an election to be valid; if no one met this minimum in the first balloting, the two candidates with the greatest number o f votes would be put forward for a runoff (Articles 88-89). 45 See Rodriguez, The C a d iz Experim ent. Chapter 5, for discussion & AGI Guatemala 502, 530 & 638 for primary source documents. For example, among the requests o f the DP were to the right to receive mail directly from Havana, by boat, rather than waiting the several months the Mexico-Guatemala-Nicaragua
239
kingdom capital over local political and economic development. Coordination with the intendants, Juan Bautista Gual (1812-1817) and Miguel Gonzalez Saravia (1817-1821, son o f a former captain general o f Guatemala), made this body particularly effective, as a series o f correspondence between Nicaragua and Spain demonstrates in the 1812-1814 and again in the 1820-1821 period. Nicaraguas agenda to achieve full political autonomy within the existing political order was further promoted by the provinces representative to the Cortes.46 Yet this federalism already hinted at the very local form that regionalism would take after independence. Instead o f consolidating provinces, the diputaciones provinciales earned in them the seeds for further fragmentation. In 1813, Comayagua, the capital o f Honduras, demanded its own diputacion. Although at this time, the citys attempts to establish an independent diputacion did not prosper, in 1820, with the revival o f the constitution, the efforts o f intendant Tomos and the city council o f Comayagua achieved recognition from Guatemala o f their breakaway organization, even while a petition to the authorities in Spain was pending.4' Yet, the move o f Tomos and Comayagua, while couched in terms o f regional interests, reflected those o f the
overland took, and to protest the Guatemalan districting commission's reassignment o f the district o f Nicoya to Costa Rica to bolster that provinces population so that it could elect a Cortes deputy. 46 Several letters and testimonials from the DP of Nicaragua can be found in AGI Guatemala 530 and 531. AGI 530 includes Nicaraguas protest at the inclusion o f the district of Nicoya into Costa Rica by the junta in Guatemala that divided the provinces for electoral matters, and an 1820 letter informing that it had resumed its functions based on news from Madrid newspapers since a six month delay would have been required to get instructions from Guatemala City. AGI 531 includes in 1821 a joint complaint of the governor and DP against representatives o f the Consulado, based in Guatemala, and 1820 demonstrations of this bodys efficacy in setting up new administrative divisions to facilitate the work of the jueces de primeras letras. The same legajo also includes a 7 March 1821 representation o f the provinces Cortes deputy requesting complete separation from the administration o f Guatemala. 47 AGI Guatemala 533, Pending: Petition: 15 February 1821.
240
capital and not the entire province. The mining region o f Tegucigalpa, appended to the intendancy o f Comayagua in 1791, was released in the wake o f the 1812 uprising to resume its former status as a politically independent alcaldia mayor. Unsurprisingly, the same men who had spent two decades securing the districts political autonomy refused to participate in Comayaguas appeal, preferring to renew traditional ties with Guatemala City.48 Had the Cortes authorized a diputacion for Comayagua, perhaps Tegucigalpa would have used the time to achieve some form o f workable relationship with its would-be capital instead o f continuing to insist on its political independence. On the other hand, Leon and Granada apparently cooperated in the Nicaraguan diputacion , but engaged in one of the isthmus most bitter civil wars after independence. Regardless of the imperfections perceived in the distribution o f diputaciones provinciates in Central America, the institution rapidly became the authority appealed to when new political practices led to friction. Through its work, it is in fact possible to see the beginnings of the kinds o f relationships that would later characterize those o f national congresses with the panoply o f local and district officials who mediated between state and people. It is also possible to see that the perception o f all authorities in Central America was that the diputacion would act much as the audiencia had throughout the colonial period, channeling disputes and applying legal reasoning and common sense to resolve local and district problems. The diputacion in no way compromised the role or the power o f the city, nor challenged the ayuntamiento as the
48 For the decision to reverse Tegucigalpas incorporation into Comayagua, as well as the towns
241
representative o f a community. Instead, balancing the law, general interest and community needs, the highly educated members o f the diputacion,49 through their decision-making, helped inform Central American cities, towns and villages o f the means to implement new legal and political provisions, such as elections. They also, in time, came to interpret the Spanish legal code in ways that best suited Central American circumstances. The Ayuntamiento Constitutional The diputacion provincial was not the only innovation o f the Cortes in terms of fostering a greater local say in local government. As in the past, the new Spanish authorities determined to bolster the role of city government at the same time they favored new provincial forms o f organization. One o f the most significant legislative ideas o f the Cortes was the institution o f democratic or representative political institutions, including that o f the city council. According to the Constitution, all members o f this council would be elected, permanent seats would be abolished, and the election would be conducted not by an outgoing council, but by all adult male citizens o f the city or town.50 Furthermore, this new town council, referred to as the ayuntamiento constitucional, would be established in any town with 1000 residents {almas, or souls), and would govern over a territory {termino), as had previous
economic, family and political ties to Guatemala, see Luis Pedro Taracena, Ilusion politico, pp. 300-304. 49 See Appendix Q for names o f members o f the diputaciones pro vin cia tes o f Guatemala and Nicaragua. 50 C onstitucion P olitico d e la M onarquia Espanola, 1812, Title 6, Chapter 1, Articles 312-315, 320. These articles explained the indirect system o f voting that would have electors select by plurality (not unanimity) their mayors, regidores, sindicos, and secretaries.
242
councils.51 Apparently, American deputies hesitated to require ayuntamientos in smaller towns for fear that the costs o f supporting local administration would be crippling to a small, and likely poor, community.52 A later decree did expand the number o f communities with local self-government, allotting a minimum o f one mayor, two aldermen and a syndic for towns with less than 200 in population.53 Absolute criteria, based on population density, defined a community deemed significant enough to merit self-government, rather than relative merits based on the type of population, the services rendered by the population to the Crown, or connections at court. In the Americas, this democratization o f the town council meant that for the first time since the conquest, Indian and Spaniard living in a reasonably extensive community would be governed by an identical city council. The effects o f such a change are examined below. Central Americas deputies did not object, but welcomed, this change to the form of city government. However, they resisted the definition o f citizenship proposed by the Spanish deputies that restricted the new form o f political participation to men of European and American descent. According to the Constitution, all free men bom and resident, or freed within, Spanish territories Spain and its overseas provincesheld the title and civil rights o f a Spaniard.54
51 C onstitucion P olitico d e la M onarquia Espanola, 1812, Title 6, Chapter 1, Article 310.
52 CufTin, Mexican Municipal Electoral Reform, pp. 64-65. 53 Spain, Laws and Statutes, 1810-1822, Coleccion d e los decretos y ordenes q u e han expedido las Cortes gen era tes y extraordinarias, II, Decreto CLXII, 23 May 1812, Formacion de los ayuntamientos constitucionales, pp. 221-225. 54 C onstitucion P olitico d e la M onarquia Espanola, 1812, Title 1, Chapter 2, Article 5, Paras. 1 and 4.
243
With this one decision, the tradition o f considering only men o f European origin, and in fact those bom in Spain, as Spaniards, was endedor almost. The Central American deputies had no objection to this inclusive definition, as they and their peers had been arguing since the turn o f the century that inclusion and education o f the Indian population o f the isthmus would contribute to its advancement.55 Larrazabal even left a proposal with the Cortes on the merits o f educating Central Americas indigenous that proposed to use funds accrued from the Constitutions abolition o f personal service to priests in order to establish schools and pay schoolmasters.56 The problem came in the distinctions made by the Constitution between Spaniard and citizen. Spaniards civil rights required them to bear arms, pay taxes, love the patria, and observe the Constitution, its laws and authorities.57 However, only citizens could vote for national authorities (Deputies to Cortes),58 obtain municipal posts, and elect municipal officials.59 Nor did non-Spaniards count in the population counts that would determine the number o f deputies each territory would send to the Cortes.60 If all free men could be Spaniards, not all qualified for citizenship.61 Those of African origin were specifically excluded. Spaniards o f African origin could receive political citizenship only through individual application. The qualification process was particularly rigorous, significantly more so than for the naturalization of a foreigner
55 Jordana Dym, Conceiving Central America: Public, Patria and Nation in the Gazeta de G uatem ala (1797-1807), NYU Graduate History Student Association Seminar, May 1997, MS. 56 AGI Guatemala 530, Memoria a las Cortes en Favor de los Indios. 57 C onstitucion P olitico de la M onarquia E spanola, 1812, Title 1, Chapter 2, Articles 6-9. 58 C onstitucion P olitico de la M onarquia E spanola , 1812, Title 3, Chapter 2, Article 35, 59 C onstitucion P olitico de la M onarquia Espanola, 1812, Title 2, Chapter 4, Article 23. 60 C onstitucion P olitico de la M onarquia Espanola, 1812, Title 2, Chapter 3, Articles 27-33. 6 1 C onstitucion P olitico de la M onarquia Espanola, 1812, Title 2, Chapter 4, Articles 18-26.
244
who was presumed to be European-bom. A man with African heritage could petition for citizenship when he could demonstrate services to the patria , or distinguished talent, application and conduct. He also had to be a legitimate son o f married parents (ingenuo), and was married to a woman o f similar background, resided in the Spanish dominions, and exercised a useful profession, office or industry, with his own capital. In other words, Spaniards o f African descent were excluded from the body politic, although they were incorporated into a new civil society.62 The American deputies protested repeatedly as each article o f the Constitution that dealt with the exclusion o f men o f African origin as citizens, although they were ultimately unsuccessful in convincing their peninsular peers to change the text. Central Americas statesmen were among the most vocal opponents o f the disenfranchisement. Florencio Castillo, the Costa Rican deputy, argued that the term origin meant place o f birth so the exclusion of citizenship should not apply to sons o f Africans bom in America, but the Cortes denied his logic.63 Guatemalan deputy Larrazabal proposed that the castas at least be allowed to vote (voz activa ) if not run for office (voz pasiva ).64 After the publication o f the Constitution, Central American politicians did not let the matter rest. In 1820, the Guatemala City representative to the next Cortes carried as part o f his instructions the order to purify the wise code of its ban on the castas
62 Constitucion P olitico d e la M onarquia E spanola , 1812 , Title 2, Chapter 4, Article 22 & 321. 63 D iario d e las D iscusiones y actas d e las C ortes (23 volumes, Cadiz, 1811-1813), Sessions o f 3, 4, 10 and 11 September 1811. See also Rodriguez, The C adiz Experim ent, pp. 60-63. 64 D iario d e lps ... C ortes, 6 September 1811.
245
citizenship.65 The exclusion o f the castas was absolutely unacceptable for the Kingdom o f Guatemala. Historians generally have accepted the argument o f the Peninsular deputies o f the time, namely, that the position expressed by the American deputies was a grandstanding move designed to give them a majority o f deputies in the Cortes (the number o f deputies each region could elect was based on population) as well as a controllable and primarily unfree citizen body.66 The question, however, had practical reverberations in the Kingdom o f Guatemala. The exclusion o f men o f African origin meant, in Central America, the exclusion not o f slaves, but o f the mixed-race descendants o f the Africans who had come to the isthmus in varying categories since the sixteenth century. According to contemporary statistics, the casta populationcalled varyingly ladino, mulato and pardo made up a third o f the Kingdom o f Guatemalas population. This population was mostly free. Furthermore, despite an assessment by the Consulado de Comercio that this group was the least useful caste for its innate weakness and abandon, a significant number o f men o f African origin were militiamen, ecclesiastics, landowners (propietarios), farmers, doctors, lawyers, artists, master artisans, retailers (tratantes) and other professionals. The disenfranchisement o f this important economic and social class would contribute to this groups willingness to support movements for
65 AGCA A1.44 Leg. 2193, Exp. 15746, fF. 138-146, Instruccion al diputado a Cortes, D. Julian Urruela. The instructions appear to have been drafted by future Guatemalan president Jose Francisco de Cordova, and are a dramatic call to arms that argues that the castes should not be deprived o f their natural rights because o f their color. 66 See, for example, La cuestion nacional americana en las Cortes de Cadiz, p. 221-231.
246
independence from Spain.67 It would also, as Guatemala City representative Antonio Larrazabal pointed out, deprive 30 to 40 communities o f local government that they had enjoyed under colonial rule, since their entire populations were made up o f ladinos or mulatos. These communities existed throughout the isthmus, in Guatemala, Honduras, San Salvador, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Most towns, in fact, had a significant ladino or mulato population.68 What would replace the ayuntamiento constitucional in these communities? The Constitution made no provisions.69 Larrazabal did not point out, but it seems likely, that the ladinos living and trading in Indian communities were also the residents most apt to have connections to elites in the larger towns and serve as the defender o f Spanish interests in the new city governments. The matter o f who was eligible to elect and serve on the ayuntamiento constitucional was more innovative and confrontational than the redefinition of the councils tasks. The Constitution succeeded, at ieast on paper, in providing a uniform set of responsibilities for the new councils. The nine responsibilities listed for the ayuntamiento constitucional were health, security, local funds, tax collection, schools, hospital, roads and other public works, drafting local municipal ordinances (which the
67 For a breakdown o f the population and professions of the castas, see Antonio Larrazabal, Apuntamientos sobre la agricultura y comercio del reyno de Guatemala...Real Consulado en Junta de Gobiemo de 20 de octubre de 1810 (Nueva Guatemala: Manuel Arevalo, 1811), and Manuel Vela, Letter, Madrid, 11 March 1824, reprinted in Menendez, ed. Textos Fundam entales, pp. 70-82 and pp. 150-170. Vela points out that the educated castas supported independence movements. 68 For a sampling o f Central American city populations around 1800, see Appendix E3. For more information, see Juarros, C om pendio de la historia , passim. Juarros characterizes the residents of most of the Kingdom o f Guatemalas towns in the early nineteenth century. Most have some Spaniards resident, but are primarily Indian or mulato. p a rd o or ladino. The casta majority towns include Masagua (Escuintla), San Luis Salcaja (Totonicapan), Quezaltenanago (Quezaltenango), Villa Nueva de Petapa (Sacatepequez), Amatitan (Sacatepequez), San Miguel (San Salvador), Las Estanzuelas (San Salvador), Truxillo (Honduras), Sonaguera (Honduras), San Fernando Omoa (fort, Honduras), Nueva Segovia (Nicaragua), Granada (Nicaragua), Realejo (Nicaragua), Cartago (Costa Rica) & Villa Vieja (Costa Rica).
247
Diputacion Provincial and then the Cortes would approve), and the promotion o f agriculture, industry and commerce.70 These were responsibilities the colonial cabildo already possessed. The Cortes also continued to draw on city councils as a source for members o f other new bodies, like censorship boards authorized to police the regulations o f the 1820 law on freedom o f the press.71 Even the councils relationship with a districts governor was unchanged. While some American deputies, including Costa Ricas Castillo, argued that the new ayuntamientos constitucionales should no longer be presided by governors, Spaniards, including the ardent liberal the Count o f Toreno, prevailed in putting the governors, renamed jefes politicos , at the head o f council meetings. If the responsibilities o f the ayuntamientos constitucionales did not represent a marked break from those o f the traditional ayuntamiento, their codification, standardization and application to all towns regardless o f the type o f resident therein marked a significant theoretical change to the fundaments o f Spanish government in the peninsula and, more particularly, in the overseas territories. The innovation in this case was in permitting not just the principal Spanish communities o f the New World to exercise such local administrative control, but to ask that other communities take on similar burdens, regardless of whether the majority o f residents were indigenous, mestizo or mulato.
69 Chust, La cuestion n acional am ericana en la s Cortes d e Cadiz, p. 221-231. 70 C onstitucion Politico d e la M onarquia Espanola, 1812, Title 6, Chapter 1, Article 321. 7 1 Ley de Libertad de imprenta (22 October 1820), E l E ditor C onstitucional, No. 41, p 503: Articles 3639 of the law of freedom o f the press not only made the mayors o f district capitals responsible for reviewing complaints of infringement of the law, but had town councils annually select the ju n ta s d e
248
The other area o f municipal government directly affected by the Constitution and subsequent legislation was that o f administration o f justice. Under the new system, mayors would no longer serve as judges o f the first instance. Instead, this task would fall to judges o f the first instance (jueces de primera instancia), who were to be named by the political chief (/e/e politico superior), a new name for the governor equivalent to the former captain general.72 In 1813, all o f the Kingdom o f Guatemalas deputies to Cortes jointly petitioned to implement the provision establishing the judges, at least in the provincial capitals, and urged that the other related provisions o f the law, including increasing the number o f judges in the audience, be swiftly put in place.73 They saw the separation o f powers as beneficial for the public, removing the administration o f justice to disinterested judges. Not surprisingly, however, resistance to implementation posed problems on the ground. The Guatemala City town council in particular put significant energy into opposing the establishment of the jueces de letras. However, resistance was not a universal response. San Salvadors council actively sought two.74 Guatemala Citys mayors were more likely to be lawyers and college graduates (bachilleres) than those anywhere else in Central America and perhaps believed in their ability to do the job well.
censura de hecho to judge the merits of the case. Each ju nta was supposed to have three times as many members as the ayuntamiento. 12 Cortes, Decree o f 23 May 1812. 7 3 AGI Guatemala 446, Letter o f Florencio Castillo, Jose Ignacio Avila, Manuel Lopez de la Plata, Mariano Robles, Antonio Larrazabal, and Francisco Morejon to Regency, 9 July 1813. ,4 DP, Minutes, 7 March 1821, Paras 1, 2. The San Salvador letter to the Captain General appeared in the Editor Constitutional o f 27 February 1821 (p. 475). Guatemala Citys resistance and capitulation after a request by the captain general can be found in its minutes for meetings o f 6, 13, 16, and February, 19 June and 27 July 1821, AGCA A l. 44 Legajo 2194, Expediente 15748, Actas de Cabildo.
249
Table 5.1: Mayors o f Guatemala City, 1808-1821, with college degrees Year-Mayor Education Name Lawyer Antonio Jose Juarros y Lacunza 1808-A1, 1814b(Al) Pedro Jose Arrivillaga y Coronado Bachiller 1809-A2 Bachiller Domingo Jose Pavon 1811-A2, 1816 A l Lawyer 1812-A2(1), Al(2) Jose del Barrio Lawyer Bernardino Lemus 1814a-Al Lawyer 1814-A 2(l) Mariano Jose Galvez y Corral 1815-A2 Manuel Jose Lara y Areze Lawyer Vicente Pavon y Mufioz Bachiller 1817-A2, 1820, A l Bachiller 1819-A1(2) Antonio Batres y Asturias 1820a-A2(2) Vicente Pielago y Fernandez Lawyer Lawyer 1821-A10) Jose Cecilio del Valle Mariano Larrave MD 1821-A1(2) Al- Alcalde Primero; A2-Alcalde Segundo Sources: AGCA A1 Leg. 2756, Exp. 23814, Abogados examinados en la Real Aud. Del Reino de Guatemala (1801-1861); & Indice de los grados de Bachiller conferidos, 1750-1821, AGCA Al Leg. 6940, Exp. 57773-57779. Since the Constitution stipulated that implementation would follow the redistricting o f the Spanish empire into provinces and districts, an act that the Cortes never completed, no juices de letras took office in the Kingdom o f Guatemala during the first constitutional period of 1812-1814. The jefe politico superior named the first three judges for the capital in July 1821, choosing three lawyers, two o f whom had already served in that city council Santiago Moreno and Alejandro Diaz Cabeza de Vaca.75 It is not clear if these first constitutional judges took office before Guatemala City declared its independence from Spain in September o f the same year.76 Thus, it would be after independence, when republican governments set up separate judicial systems, that the advantages or disadvantages, as well as difficulties of this innovation would be
75 AGCA A 1.44 Leg. 2194 Exp. 15748, Actas de Cabildo. 27 July 1821, Session, No. 63, Par. 9. The third was Jose Mariano Jauregui. His son, Manuel Jose, also a lawyer, was mayor o f Guatemala City in 1832. 76AGCA A 1.44 Leg. 2194, Exp. 15748, Actas de Cabildo, 31 August 1821. On this date, 15 days before independence, the DP and governor suggested that the ayuntamiento o f Guatemala fund its judges
250
felt in Central America. In the interim, however, the resistance o f Guatemala City demonstrated that no matter what the regime, a city council could continue to oppose unwelcome policy changes. The Constitutional of C&diz in the Kingdom of Guatemala The Constitution o f 1812 reached Central America months after its promulgation. Upon its arrival, and upon its reinstatement in the fall o f 1820, Central American leaders implemented the new magtia carta with evident enthusiasm. The testimonies of the ceremonies in which all officials and then residents o f the isthmus swore loyalty to the new authorities detail the coming together o f secular, religious and military authorities to throw impressive local fiestas, hold masses, set off military salutes, make speeches and otherwise accompany their oaths with all the joy, pomp and circumstance possible.77 Nor was the joy a theoretical one in which the ideas o f the constitution were feted while its provisions were not enacted. Elections took place regularly in communities large and small to elect the diputaciones provinciates, Cortes deputies and ayuntamientos constitucionales decreed by the Constitution.78 Both diputaciones
through a disused tax. The council also discussed a request for notaries for the judges. It is not clear that their courts had yet convened. 77 See the Gazeta de Guatemala, T.XVI, No. 280, f. 297, 2 October 1812 for an account of Guatemala Citys celebration over the oath o f the Constitution in 1812. See AGI Guatemala 530 for the Kingdom of Guatemalan's numerous oaths o f loyalty to the constitution undertaken by the large and small towns of Central America in 1820. Churchmen, governors, military men and city councilors authored the papers, as each type of official and authority swore its oath. 78 For details on the elections o f the period, see Avendano, Procesos Electorates y Clase Politica. Examples of the elections of the various kinds o f electors can be found for Tegucigalpa in ANH Fondo Colonial, Caja 112, No 3583, Libro de Actas, Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa (1813-1814) and Caja 114, No 3665 (1814). For activities o f the Guatemala City council to implement voting instructions and
251
provinciates were in operation by 1813, with representatives from their multiple districts, and quickly resumed operations in 1820 when the constitutional system was restored.79 While it is unclear just how many towns instituted constitutional city councils in this period, indirect evidence suggests that the number the number of towns with full councils grew exponentially. Certainly, the number o f eligible towns, with populations o f 200 or greater, was significant. In the parish o f Tegucigalpa alone, o f the 15 communities listed in 1815, all but four had at least 250 residents. By January 1814, seven had ayuntamientos constitucionales.80 Although one cannot make a generalization based on one district, it would appear that, in addition to the dozen Spanish town councils that immediately and competently changed their organization, dozens o f new town councils organized or were organized throughout Central America. Based on correspondence by governors and newly-installed city councils with the Guatemala diputacion provincial in 1820, most districts succeeded in installing at least a few councils. In 1820, the diputacion corresponded with the mining town o f Corpus, in the alcaldia mayor (Tegucigalpa), Quaguiniquilapa (Escuintla), San Martin (Chimaltenango), San Antonio (Suchitepequez ).81 In addition, the governor o f Cartago (Costa Rica) informed that all but two towns (Alajuela, and the Indian reduccion of
supervise votes in the capital, see AGCA A1.44, Leg 2190, Exp. 15738, Libro de Actas, 1813 and Leg. 2193, Exp 15746, Libro de Actas, 1820; AMS, Caja 1800-1809, Libro de Elecciones, 1809-1820. ,9 See Appendix Q and Table 6.2 80 See Appendix F, T3 for populations. ANH Fondo Colonial, Caja 112, No. 3585, 20 January 1814. The note informs that in addition to the five councils reported on 5 January, the towns o f Nacaome and Orica had reported the installation o f their ayuntamientos constitucionales. 8 1 Carlos Urrutia to N. Ayuntamiento del Mineral del Corpus, 6 December 1820; Same to Alcalde Mayor de Escuintla, 18 December 1820. Same to Corregidor de Chimaltenango, 20 December 1820; Minutes DP, 20 September 1820. Corpus' ayuntamiento constitutional took office on 20 September; San Martins
252
Escen y Paenca), had conducted elections. San Salvadors list o f installed councils was approved in November, and Quezaltenangos was informed that constitutional cabildos in the capital (cabecera ), Barrio de San Marcos, and pueblo o f Texutla were insufficient.82 By the middle of 1821, the government in Guatemala City believed there were over 200 constitutional councils located throughout the territory.
o-j
Such
correspondence suggests a significant interest in the countryside to organize the official political institution of their municipalities The provisions of Article 312 o f the Constitution, instituting the popular election of all city councilors, with the immediate cessation o f all perpetual office holding, provoked little resistance. For the most part, the conquest towns and cities reacted with enthusiasm and rapidity to the establishment of democratic councils, with Comayagua in the province o f Honduras writing jubilantly to Spain in November o f 1812 that it had seated the first o f the Kingdoms new ayuntamientos constitucionales after holding parish elections.84 In Guatemala City, where the 1809 return to a system o f bi-annually elected aldermen (regidores biennales) had anticipated one principal provision o f Article 312, the change provoked no difficulty. Nor, apparently, did the shift from a restricted number of voters (the outgoing town councilors) to popular election. In other towns like Sonsonate, which had relied on regidores bienales to fill vacant council
& Quaginiquilapa's had doubts on election procedures. San Antonio's council sought to establish primary schools. Documentos Historicos, V. 2 (Guatemala:Diario de Centroamerica, 1930), pp. 21, 28, 79. 82 Minutes o f DP meeting, 15 September, 7 October and 6 November, 1820, Documentos Historicos, Vol. 2, p. 69-70,81. 83 See Chapter 5. 84 AGI Guatemala 533, 5 November 1812, Ayuntamiento Constitucional de Comayagua a la Regencia.
253
seats, there is no record that the shift to a constitutional council met with substantive opposition. This is not to say that individual aldermen found their loss of office welcome. In at least one city, a permanent alderman attempted to pressure local and Spanish authorities to keep his position, driving the intendant to establish military guards during the election and swearing-in ceremony for the new council. The electors o f Comayagua reported that one o f their number, Pablo Nieto, a former regidor propietario, was someone whose efforts would lead to tragedy in the election o f the 1813 ayuntamiento constitucional if the intendant did not act. Nieto was apparently prepared to use the threat of force to have the electors select one o f the citys two mayors from the regidores propietarios who had lost their municipal posts with the switch to the constitutional system.85 Perhaps to appease those whose service had apparently been discarded, the Cortes authorized the former cabildantes the honors, treatment and uniform they had used when in office.86 Nor is it to say that those who had formerly purchased their way onto the principal city councils o f Central America were prepared to compete equally with all others for seats on the new councils. By 1820, the diputacion provincial o f Guatemala issued regulations regarding the freedom o f each elector to choose his own candidate. Apparently, powerful men in Antigua and Guatemala City were providing lists of
85 AGI Guatemala 722, Letters o f Intendant Juan Antonio Tomos, 9 November 1812 and 26 September 1813, Comayagua. Responding to Tomos first letter, the Regency objected in a letter o f 18 April 1813 to the militarization o f the elections as contrary to the freedom that should reign in the election of ayuntamientos. Tomos responded, arguing that he had acted for the freedom of the electors because a terrible and rebellious man (Nieto) was trying to impede the formation o f the new ayuntamiento.
254
candidates to electors, and in one case, a priest apparently used commissioners to provide such a list in a poor neighborhood to drum up votes.
87
For those places either uninterested or incapable, the 1820 diputacion and captain general urged governors and other judges to accelerate the establishment and installation o f these new councils, and asked the archbishop to mobilize his priests to help with the organization.88 In specific cases, the diputacion event threatened to fine corregidores who did not seem interested in installing the constitutional councils in Indian villages.89 In general, the varying levels enthusiasm and zeal on the part o f the governor o f a particular province to learn about the new regulations and to implement the new political system, led to an uneven introduction o f constitutional councils. While the governors o f San Salvador and Costa Rica reported success in establishing many ayuntamientos constitucionales, governors in Indian-majority provinces like
84 AGI Guatemala 533, Order, 4 April 1813. Received by the Ayuntamiento of Nicaragua, 1 Oct. 1813. 87 In 1820, a resident o f the Candelaria barrio, Nazario Evora, reported that he and other residents o f the Las Vacas district had had their electoral rights violated through the circulation o f a list o f individuals to vote for by the priest Enrique Loma and various commissioners who had staffs o f justice. In this case, the diputacion forwarded the complaint to the town council, telling that body to call witnesses, and reprimand them, and demand that in future it take preventive measures. In addition, the diputacion also wrote to the archbishop, so that he takes the appropriate action regarding the cleric, who could not be judged by the secular system. A similar case from Antigua Guatemala, in which the governor reported that influential residents were providing electors with lists o f individuals to vote for, met with identical treatment. E l E ditor C onstitucional, No. 44, 23 April 1821, v. 2, p. 534. Diputacion Provincial de Guatemala, Session 13,9 December 1820. Pagination refers to the republication o f the entire run o f the E d ito r in two volumes 1969. E l E ditor C onstitucional (1820-1821) (Guatemala: Ministerio de Educacion, 1969). 88 Carlos Urrutia to Intendants and Alcaldes Mayores, 18 December 1820; Same to Archbishop, December 1820, D ocum entos H istoricos, Vol. 2, p. 21. 26. 89 D ocum entos H istoricos , Vol. 2, p. 34, Carlos Urrutia to Corregidor de Chiquimula, 5 January 1821. The Syndic o f the constitutional council o f Jalapa informed on the corregidor, stating he had told the indians o f the pueblos o f Pimirala, Casaguastlan, Sumatan and Chiquimula not to obey the alcaldse constitucionales, but had not installed ayuntam ientos in these pueblos either. The diputacion responded with a threat o f a 200 peso fine to the Corregidor if he did not immediately establish the councils.
255
Quezaltenango and Chiquimula preferred to establish fewer councils in Indian villages, ostensibly because o f difficulties this would cause with tribute collection.90 The most contentious part o f the establishment of the ayuntamientos constitucionales had to do with the heterogeneous nature o f Central Americas population and the exclusion o f the castas from both active and passive citizenship. Since technically the mulatos and pardos o f Central America were excluded from participating in the new democratic processes, leaders in Central America found a way to include many castas among citizens in practice. In 1812, a junta preparatoria convened in Guatemala City to prepare the instructions for the Kingdoms first constitutional elections. Captain General Jose Bustamante, archbishop Ramon Casaus, the captain generals Tegucigalpa-born advisor Jose Cecilio del Valle, and regidores from the Guatemala City town council took it upon themselves to elaborate on the meaning o f citizenship defined by Cadiz to meet the needs o f the Kingdom. For Guatemala, Spaniards would include the following groups: Indian; the Spanish or American White; the mestizo, or son of an Indian and white; the mulato, or son o f a black and white; the sambo, son o f Indian and black[. They] are Spanish in the third meaning (acepcion ).91 This was in line with the Cortes definition, for it had distinguished between Spaniards, who were all bom in Spanish territory, and citizens, who were a more restricted group. However, the commissions Instruccion
90 See note 82. Minutes o f DP meeting, 15 September, 7 October and 6 November, 1820, D ocum entos H isto rico s , Vol. 2, p. 69-70, 81. 1 Instruccion fo r m a d a de orden d e la Ju n ta P reparatoria para fa c ilita r la s elecciones de diputados y o ficios consejiles, 1812, Part 2, Article 1, Number 3. The text of the Spanish reads, indio: el Blanco Europeo, o Americano; el mestizo, o hijo de Indio y bianco: el mulato, o hijo de negro y bianco: el
256
began to take liberties with the definition o f citizenship to reflect local reality. Specifically, the junta defined a citizen as a man, 25 years o f age or older, who was solvent, not a servant or dependent, and white, either American or European, Indian or mestizo, or their natural or legitimate sons. Except for the last part, the commission followed the Spanish code, but in explicitly including natural sons, it took a step not contemplated by the Constitution o f 1812. In fact, the Instruccion argued for their inclusion on the basis o f silence in the official code.92 The Instruccion then went further with regard to the castas. If, in theory, the Junta repeated the injunctions of the Cortes that excluded the numerous men o f partial African origin from citizenship, the notes to the text suggest the local preference for inclusion o f the castas as citizens. In a footnote, the Junta speculated that the Cortes would pay attention to those who had shown conclusive evidence o f loyalty to Spain and the just cause. 93 This note broadly hinted to men who had supported Ferdinand VII to petition the Cortes for citizenship on those grounds. With Central Americas militia largely made up o f pardo and mulato soldiers, numerous men were eligible to seek citizenship through this mechanism. The Instruccion also held that small towns that did not have the requisite number o f residents to make up a parish for voting purposes should aggregate themselves to the nearest town that had previously had an ayuntamiento. It further argued, that even if its vecinos cannot exercise rights as
sambo, o hijo de Indio y negro, son espanoles en la tercera acepcion, la misma en que se tomara esta voz siempre que se use de ella.
9~ Instruccion fo r m a d a d e orden de la Junta Preparatoria p a ra fa c ilita r la s elecciones d e d ip u ta d o s y o ficio s consejiles, 1812, Part 1, Article 2, Number 3, and Footnote.
257
citizens, they will conduct the elections.94 The majority o f vecinos disqualified from citizenship under the constitution were those with some African origin, so the implication was that even ladinos, pardos and mulatos might participate in local electoral processes even if formally excluded from doing so. Certainly in practice, the castas received the message that they could participate extensively in local politics. In some cases, the integration of ladinos or mulatos into the body politic seems to have happened with little or no friction. The constitutional council o f Masaya (Nicaragua) wrote on behalf o f the vecinos Espanoles y ladinos in 1814, indicating that in some provinces, the purpose o f the instruction had been understood.95 Both groups were participating in the new political system, even if one (the ladinos) was technically excluded. In another case, the Sonsonate city council, which previously had restricted office holding to the Spanish and Creole elite, elected mulatos to municipal positions, including that o f mayor.96 Since all the new cabildantes were by definition citizens, it is hard to document other cases of natural inclusion. Yet occasionally, the documents refer to Spaniards previously called mulattos in relation
93 Instruccion fo rm a d a d e orden de la Junta P reparatoria p a ra fa c ilita r las elecciones de diputados y oficios con sejiles , 1812, Part 1, Article 2, Number 1; and Footnote J. 94 Instruccion fo rm a d a d e orden de la Junta P reparatoria p a ra fa c ilita r las elecciones de diputados y oficios con sejiles , 1812, Part 2, Article 2 Number 12.
95 AGI Guatemala 533, Carta del ayuntamiento de Masaya, 18 November 1814. The letter praised the behavior o f the priest Policarpo Irigoyen during the political convulsions affecting the province. 96 Archivo Municipal de Sonsonate, Caja 3, 1800-1809, Libro de Elecciones, 1809-1817, ff. 40v-51v. Juan Santos Gutierrez, elected alcalde segundo in 1814 by the alcalde mayor, was a mulatto. Documents from his time in office make no reference to his race/ethnicity. In 1817, however, when the alcalde m a yo r named Gutierrez mayor after disqualifying mayor-elect Eugenio Rascon on legal grounds, the town council objected to Gutieirez heritage as well as the governors authority to make the appointment. The a udiencia sustained both Rascons ouster and the citys right to elect its own mayor, so Gutierrez did not serve in 1817. However, he did go on to serve as town councilor and mayor four more times after independence. See Appendix M.
258
to local politics, indicating both the acceptance o f new terminology and rules, without the absolute eradication o f underlying distinctions.97 In others cases, however, the diputacion provincial had to intervene to ensure that ladinos could vote, and in these cases we see the both Guatemala City elites active support o f casta citizenship and the problems that the principle of one law for all had in practice. The Guatemala City diputacion was particularly clear on the point. When the artisans o f San Miguel (San Salvador) protested their exclusion from municipal elections in 1820, the DP responded with a note to the provincial governor that those "called" Pardos or Mulatos" should not be excluded as originarios de Africa" without a previous declaration (declaratoria)."9 % When vecinos o f Comayagua and Choluteca, both in Honduras, made similar complaints, the diputacion once again instructed the governor to prevent exclusion for unfounded attributions o f mulato or pardo origins.99 In other words, the attitude it promoted was to assume non-African heritage and accept someones citizenship unless previous proof had been laid. If the castas could not be included in the citizenry of the new' order, then there would be no castas to exclude. The Central American leadership also attempted to include the Indian population in elections, both as electors and as officials. However, the DP refused to make
97 AGI Guatemala 722, Letter of Intendant Juan Antonio Tomos, 26 September 1813, Comayagua. In the Comayagua dispute during the election o f the first constitutional ayuntamiento, the sympathetic intendant Tomos had to threaten the disruptive former councilor Nieto when the newly-elected mayor reported that Nieto was working with Spaniards formerly known as mulatos" to destabilize the council. Perhaps the reason Tomos was able to achieve ascendancy because the 16 electors had elected men who werent nobles to the new ayuntamiento 98 Minutes o f DP meeting, 17 November, 1820. Documentos Historicos, Vol. 2 (Guatemala: Diario de Centroamerica, 1930), p. 120. The DP did not, however, call for a new election. 99 El Editor Constitucional, Issue 19, 19 March 1821, pp. 486-487. DP Session 5, 17 November 1820. The individuals were Jacinto Rubi o f Comayagua and Jose Flamencos o f Choluteca.
259
concessions that would guarantee that towns with majority indigenous populations would have at least a significant representation in the new ayuntamientos constitucionales. Comayagua intendant Tomos made a special effort in 1813 to find shoes and clothes for an Indian elector in Comayagua, and to escort him to the polling site, apparently because the man was too intimidated to go alone.100 Juan Jose Echeverria, governor o f Quezaltenango, received particular praise for the zeal and vigilance" with which he established constitutional councils in that primarily indigenous province.1 0 1 When the governor o f Verapaz reported to the diputacion provincial of 1820 that the Indians o f San Cristobal and Santa Elena did not wish to serve as aldermen for two full years, because o f the need to support their parish priest and pay for local festivities, the diputacion emphasized the importance o f municipal service. It urged the governor not only to convince the aldermen to remain in their positions, but to remind them o f the abrogation of service to priests.102 The Verapaz case may well have represented the initial (and reasonable) indigenous reaction to the invasion o f a new form o f self-government that demanded significantly more work o f council members than had their limited colonial institution. However, from the records o f the DP, it would appear that many o f the problems in establishing ayuntamientos constitucionales in indigenous regions seems to have originated with a significant and active presence o f ladinos in the villages, and the need
100 AGI Guatemala 722, Letter of Intendant Juan Antonio Tomos, 26 September 1813, Comayagua. 'Diputacion de Guatemala to Cortes, No. 21, reprinted in Documentos Historicos, Vol. 2 (Guatemala: Diario de Centroamerica, 1930), pp. 57-58. The governor was Juan Jose Echeverria. 102 Carlos Urrutia to Alcalde Mayor, Verapaz, 3 December 1820. Reprinted in Documentos Historicos, Volume 2 (Guatemala: Diario de Centroamerica, 1930), p. 18.
260
to reduce multiple governments, one for each group, to one ayuntamiento constitucional. The Chimaltenango governor received numerous orders from the diputacion provincial in 1820 and 1821 to install the districts constitutional councils, which various Indians demanded. The councils were, according to instruction to be elected without distinction or any difference between Indians and ladinos. [T]here should not be two classes o f Ayuntamiento; the old cabildos should cease, with only constitutional councils remaining. The Mayors in these councils are ordinary, and with authority over all countrymen (paisanos), Indians and Ladinos. And there should be no governors, commissioners nor judges (jueces preventivas ).103 Although the reasons for the Indians request is not stipulated, the implication in the DPs response is that local Indian groups had lost control o f their local government to ladino residents and wanted the DP to support the establishment of ayuntamientos constitucionales for their communities alone. If the response to such a request seems unsympathetic, it was nonetheless consistent with an attempt by elites to put into practice the theory that a homogeneous government would produce a homogeneous people and the advancement of the region. The insistence that indigenous and ladino village residents share in city government was also consistent with answers to similar requests. In Quezaltenango, in 1820, the governor sought permission to reserve one third o f council seats for the citys indigenous, but found this proposal rejected on legal grounds. The Indians themselves did not wish to have a constitutional cabildo at all,
103 DP Minutes, 29 December 1820; Carlos Urrutia to Corregidor o f Chiquimula, 24 January 1821; Urrutia to Cortes, 3 July 1821, in Documentos Historicos, Vol. 2 (Guatemala: Diario de Centroamerica, 1930), pp. 42, 54, 141. By July 1821, the DP reported the governor, Mariano Bujons, to the Spanish Cortes for repeated failure to install constitutional councils in Indian villages. Bujons insisted on the oldstyle Indian council in which residents remained subject to the governor and not the mayor in ordinary judicial cases.
261
preferring the traditional separation o f councils, one for each community.104 Essentially, this decision meant that the Constitution ended a centuries-old tradition o f Indian government in Quezaltenango, abolishing the Indian authorities and forcing them to compete with Spaniards, Creoles and ladinos for a limited number o f seats on the town council established in the early 1800s for the Spaniards and still mostly under that communitys control. As these cases hint, the establishment o f a constitutional government, which eliminated separate political spheres for Indians and other members of Guatemalan society, provided a new outlet for expression o f old frictions. Elections became a means to express conflict in communities in which different ethnic groups resided and had hostile relations. Such was the case when the Indian mayor o f Chinameca (El Salvador) wrote to the captain general in early 1814 to request that the Indians o f that town not be subjected to government by local ladinos. The mayor, Narciso Peres, argued that since the Indians, loyal vassals o f a well-loved monarch, had cooperated with the whites (blancos) o f the district to end the ladinos clandestine tobacco farming, the ladinos hate our group (parcialidad) to death. Mayoral elections for 1814 had led to the nomination o f one of the principal smugglers, and the Indians feared the implications of his tenure in office. The letter ended with an implicit threat, urging action so our spirit remains calm. 105 Joint government in Chinameca had led not to an
1 0 4 Minutes, DP Meeting, 30 October and 29 November 1820, in Documentos Historicos, Vol. 2 (Guatemala: Diario de Centroamerica, 1930), pp. 100, 131. 105 AGN (San Salvador), Seccion Antigua, Caja 1, Folder 2. Letter of the Aicaide de Chinameca to Captain General Jose de Bustamante, 22 January 1814, Chinameca (San Salvador). The letter is signed
262
agreement between two bitterly-opposed communities, treated differently by colonial authorities, but to competition between them. Mayor Peres request was supported in a letter by one o f Chinamecas blancos, Jose Maria Palencia, who provided further details o f how the ladinos had succeeded in taking over the towns government. According to Palencia, after the ladinos hatred o f the whites and Indians grew with the undercutting o f their illegal trade, the six electors who were chosen to elect the new town council, who numbered among the most principal l a d i n o s met before the election and agreed to elect no whites or Indians, so that they could control the town. Palencias request to the intendant o f the province not to confirm the elections had borne no fruit, so he determined to write to the captain general. Palencias letter is interesting on several grounds. First, it is clear that this provincial understood the regulations governing the new electoral system well enough to suggest a legal means to invalidate the election. Because o f the newly-elected mayors past record as a contrabandist, Palencia suggested that he be stripped o f his rights o f citizenship (derechos de ciudadano) and thus become ineligible to elect or be elected.106 His knowledge undercuts arguments that the fine points o f political policies were beyond the reach o f the countryside. If a majority of residents in small towns did not read or understand new laws, literate residents were generally aware o f their new governments, and capable of acting within changing political parameters. Second,
by the city scribe, Manuel Trinidad Flores. This case was brought to my attention Prof. Aldo Lauria Santiago (College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA).
263
Palencia informed the captain general that he had received a warning from a San Miguel alderman that his own life might be threatened if he continued to meddle. Why? Because the individual who had been elected to Chinamecas mayoralty was being encouraged in his pride by residents o f that city.107 In other words, the purely local election had been influenced by the powerful elites o f the district cabecera. Creoles in the countryside were not isolated, from each other or from their political capital, and used the new system to change the ground rules for their local relations o f power. By mechanisms that are not clear from the case, one group had managed to use the new system to gain absolute control of election of, and membership in, the constitutional city council o f Chinameca and its administrative and symbolic authority, and the other group feared the consequences. The group in control was the ladino hispanized, Spanish-speaking and integrated into the legal and illegal commercial circuits o f Central America. Without overemphasizing the implications o f one case, this example, when examined alongside the decisions o f the DP in similar cases, does hint how the elites push to include castas as citizens had as a deliberate or accidental consequence to further disenfranchise Indian communities. The Indians found that a majority-population did not necessarily lead to control o f the new elective forms o f government. Active and organized participation did. The problems o f a single legal system and equal citizenship rights, touted by liberals like Pedro Molina as a solution to
106 Constitucion politico de la monarquia espanola. Title 2, Chapter 4, Article 25. This article included among the reasons for suspension o f citizenship rights that o f recent sentencing for a crime. 107 AGN (San Salvador), Seccion Antigua, Caja 1, Folder 2. Letter o f Jose Maria Palencia to Captain General Jose de Bustamante, 8 January 1814, Chinameca (San Salvador).
264
centuries o f inequity, would haunt the new Central American federation after independence.108 If individuals had citizenship rights that allowed them to vote for city councilors, the new ayuntamientos constitucionales also had citizenship rights and duties. Beyond its technical responsibilities, city government also proved an important institution by which the Kingdom o f Guatemalas Creoles and Spaniards could demonstrate their continued allegiance to Spain. Kingdom capital Guatemala City assumed the role o f distributor o f decrees to other cities and towns o f its district, directly and indirectly supporting the Spanish connection. The proactive stance o f the council dismayed the captain general, who felt his own role was slighted, but was approved by the Regency in Spain, which recognized the sign o f loyalty that the act represented.109 Both Guatemala City and San Salvador cast medals honoring the kidnapped king, Ferdinand VII, that were to be worn by the councilors, and in the case o f Guatemala City, by their wives. In Comayagua, regidor Juan Fernandez Lindo and his son Joaquin, also a council member, not only made patriotic speeches which they dispatched to Spain in hope o f attracting official notice. They also designed and paid for the erection o f a monument to the constitution in Comayaguas town square, once all such squares were renamed Plaza de la Constitucion by a decree o f the Cortes in August o f 1812. Guatemala Citys town council went one step further, seeking permission to have their constitutional plaza declared a place o f asylum, arguing that such a concession would allow the
108 See, for example, his essays in El Editor Constitucional (2nd volume).
1 0 9 AGI Guatemala 624.
265
m u ch ed u m b re or multitudes, to appreciate the new circumstances afforded by the constitutional system. This request was denied.110 In addition to respecting and promulgating the new laws issuing from Cadiz, the most direct way that a council could demonstrate loyalty to the deposed monarch and Spanish imperial system was through a declaration. Such a declaration, while issued by many councils, was not necessarily an automatic response to the news o f turmoil on the Peninsula. In Tegucigalpa, the council session o f 22 September 1808 recorded a decision to declare the French pressure on Ferdinand VH to abdicate as violent, nul, and with no effect, which we swear and declare as faithful vassals o f our king and natural Lord Don Fernando VII.. .and for whose acclaimed name we sacrifice our lives and haciendas in defense o f him and our patria, without recognizing any foreign sovereignty. Yet the same session also noted that the council had received newspapers informing o f the abdication on 30 August, suggesting that the members o f the council had spent the three weeks between notification and action considering options and consulting the temperament o f their hinterland and the other Spanish towns in the district.11 1 Thus by the time that the council met on 8 October, to acknowledge receipt of Guatemala Citys letter announcing that capitals adhesion to the monarchy, Tegucigalpa could decide to answer that they had already completed their act of fealty to the king. The intendant o f Honduras notice to Tegucigalpa arrived even later, with
110 AGI 533, Tomos, Comayagua, 10 January 1513; AGCA A1.44, Leg. 2190, Exp. 15739, Guatemala City, Actas de Cabildo, 1813. 16 July 1813. 1 1 1 AMT, Libro de Actas Municipales, 1801-1832, 22 September 1808. The session's act was signed by Francisco Hariza, Francisco San Martin, Juan Jacinto de Herrera, Manuel Antonio Vasquez and Domingo San Martin.
266
the council acknowledging receipt o f the official notification on 15 November. After this second set o f notifications, the town decided on 16 December to repeat the oath of loyalty on 26 December.112 Such loyalty received the kind o f reward that had long been awarded by the Spanish authorities, promotions o f towns to cities, and honorifics for capitals that already had such titles. The pueblo o f Santa Ana received the title o f villa under the Cortes and Regency for acts o f patriotism that included putting down independence movements in San Salvador province. For similar reasons, San Jose (Costa Rica) and San Vicente (El Salvador) received the title o f city and three other Costa Rican pueblos were elevated to villa status: Heredia, Alajuela, and Ujarras. Province capital Cartago received the title o f most noble and most loyal.113 Guatemala City, already a kingdom capital with special privileges earned a coveted honor for its unswerving loyaltythe right to be addressed as excellency (tratamiento de excelencia) that put it on the same honorific level as the audiencia .ll4 Deputy Francisco Morejon actively sought similar honors for Comayaguas council and its individuals, while the Nicaraguan towns o f Managua and Masaya received confirmation of titles as villas in 1819 for their efforts in 1811-1812 for suppressing a revolt in Granada.115 Spanish authorities generally approved such measures. Both the governor and bishop o f Nicaragua supported the
112 AMT, Libro de Actas Municipales, 1801-1832, 8 October and 15 November 1808. The October meeting included the additional signature o f Jose Vigil. 1 1 3 AGI Guatemala 530, Cortes, 16 October 1813,Isla de Leon for the Costa Rican cities; AGI Guatemala 534 for San Vicente. 11 4 AGI Guatemala 533 and 534. Carta del Cabildo de Guatemala, 24 June 1815. The council asked for the privilege in 1815. IISAGI Guatemala 533, Morejon to Regency, 16 January 1813. See note 21.
267
request, which originated in Masayas town council.116 When one considers that before the constitutional period, there were only around a dozen operating town councils with the title o f city or villa, and that in this period, the number almost doubled, it is clear that at least in terms o f hierarchical and honorific benefits, patriotism and loyalty could pay off. It is also clear that communities sought rewards and acknowledgment o f exceptional merit for the institution with which the community and its members were associated and identified in the Kingdom o f Guatemala and the Spanish empire. Elevation o f municipal rank communicated to near neighbors and distant capitals the importance o f the favored town. Had community members not identified politically with their towns, such promotions would have had little value. Other ways in which the city remained a key institution was as the collector of funds for the Spanish war effort. The donativos o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala were significant and the continuation of a long-standing tradition o f active support o f the Crown in times o f war.117 Encouraged by Spanish governors, towns across Central America made significant donations to the just cause. Jose Maria Peynado, as intendant o f San Salvador, was able to report a significant collection o f 24,000 pesos from that districts indigo producers in 1812, after the Cortes had issued a decree (31 December 1811) that favored the political participation o f the regions castas, who in
116 AGI Guatemala 533, 18 November 1814, Ayuntamiento de Masaya al Gobiemo Espanol; AGI Guatemala 534, 18 March 1816, Consejo de Indias. 1,7 See AGI Guatemala 533. Solola gave an important donation in 1813. See also the Gazeta del Gobiemo de Guatemaala, No. 47, p. 443, 12 May 1814. In 1784, for example, Sonsonate gave 5247 pesos as donativo from the mayors and alcalde mayor for war, AGI 813-814; Real Hacienda for 1784.
268
that province were often mulattos.118 In 1813, the Indians o f the Solola district contributed through their communities the sum o f 3844 pesos.119 Although there is no fully itemized list o f contributions, a careful examination o f the reports o f the real hacienda and the articles of the Gazeta de Guatemala will likely turn up significant additional donations. When the constitution was reinstated in 1820, this tradition was resumed. In 1820, Indian, Spanish and Creole residents continued to contribute funds to Spain and also to the support o f local militias. Chiapas list o f donors was published in the Guatemalan newspaper, El Editor Constitucional.12 Solola once again gave funds and in Quezaltenango, the faithful inhabitants... and loyal vassals o f the cabecera and the pueblos o f the district (partido ) donated funds to the war being waged to secure the Metropolis.1 2 1 O f course, the city council was not the only means that the kingdom had to demonstrate its loyalty. Literary acts held to honor the deposed king could be sponsored by other institutions, like the University o f San Carlos, to which Juan Fermin de Aycinena, son o f the first marquis of the Kingdom o f Guatemala, his namesake father, gave an elaborate speech to Ferdinand VII. Yet, when Aycinena wanted the authorities in Spain to know of his patriotism, he asked the Guatemala City town council to vouchsafe both his political loyalty and his act.122 At the instigation o f the
11 8 AGI Guatemala 446, Jose Maria Peynado, Corregidor & Intendant, San Salvador, 17 August 1812. 119 AGI Guatemala 446. Gabriel Garcia Ballecillos, alcalde mayor, Solola, Letter o f 15 Dec. 1813. 120 E l E d ito r C onstitucional, 13 November 1820. Supplement to No. 20, pp. 285-293, 1 2 1 E l E d ito r Constitucional,', AGI Guatemala 533, Letter o f 20 September 1814, Quezaltenango. 122 AGCA, A1 Leg. 1907, Expediente 12681, ff. 406. While still a student, Aycinena, on 13 February 1809, declaimed an exaltation of the throne of Ferdinand VII and the installation o f the Junta Central, and the progress made by the Spanish arms. His speech was later printed, on the instigation o f the rector o f the University o f San Carlos, Dr. Bernardo Pavon. Aycinena was Pavons brother-in-law. His half-
269
captain general, many towns formed volunteer militia corps called the Volunteers o f Ferdinand VII. Often, however, it was the city council that took on the task o f recruitment, and many cabildantes became officers and soldiers in these new corps. Among the members o f the Volunteers in the capital who also served various roles in the ayuntamiento were lawyer Jose Antonio Larrave y Velasco, later a member o f the city council (1820-1838) and a distinguished jurist in both federal and state governments; Gregorio Urruela, a wealthy Spanish merchant whose long municipal career was continued by his sons; and Marcial Zebadua, a prominent Chiapas-bom lawyer and later legislator who represented Central America in the Court o f St. James (London) in 1826 before returning to serve as minister of foreign affairs in several Central American governments. The four companies of Quezaltenango, organized by the town council, were funded by their own officers and troops, and served with honor in four actions against the Morelos insurgents in Oaxaca and Tehuantepec in 1813, as was reported in the Gazeta de Mexico o f 1 June 1813.123 City and State on the Eve of Independence While the new city councils were taking office and changing the relationship between individual and government forever, the diputacion provincial was also fulfilling its mandate. Responding to numerous requests for guidance on how to hold elections, determine who was eligible for citizenship, and other fine points regarding
sister, Maria Micaela Aycinena y Najera, was married to Pavons brother, Manuel Jose Pavon y Muiioz. For family information, thanks to Christophe Belaubre and the census o f 1829, located at the AHAG to which he pointed me. Padron de la Paroquia Rectoral del Sagrario de la parte del poniente, formado pr el Cura encargado Jose Mariano Dominguez en el afio del Sr de 1829.
270
how to implement the Constitution kept the sessions occupied.124 However, questions o f greater instance also crossed its threshold. For example, the ecclesiastic council o f San Salvador sought the D Ps intervention to promote its demand for a bishopric for that province in 1820.125 It was the diputacion provincial that in 1820 convinced the captain general to order reprints o f Cortes laws for the local courts (juzgados )2000 copies eachputting Guatemala lawyer and cabildante Alejandro Diaz Cabeza de Vaca in charge. It was also the diputacion that drew the governors attention to Article 17, Chapter 3 o f the regulation that the DP should receive copies o f all laws and decrees of the government, leading to a gubernatorial order for his secretary to forward them.126 In November 1820, with election season approaching, the diputacion prepared a circular to all the governors and judges to ensure the creation and functioning o f constitutional councils where required; it also asked the archbishop to distribute the circular to priests and urge them to help accomplish this task.127 It also determined that Guatemala City could at least provisionally elect a deputy to Cortes even though it was not a capital o f a province, the criterion demanded by the Constitution. This politically delicate point was brought to the DPs attention by one o f its members, Jose Matias Delgado, a San
1 2 3 AGI Guatemala S33, Letter o f 20 September 1814, Ayuntamiento de Quezaltenango. The names and information about the four companies can be found in the Gazeta deG uatem ala nos. 226, 241 and 265. 124 E l E dito r C onstitucional, No. 44; 23 April 1821, V. 2, p. 533, DP, Session o f 6 Decmeber 1820, Pt. 2. 125 E l E dito r C onstitucional, No. 43 and 44, 16 and 23 April 1821, V. 2, pp. 529 and 534. Sessions 10 and 11, 29 November and 6 December 1820. After receiving the case in session 10, the diputacion determined to send the dossier for an opinion to the archbishop o f Guatemala. 126 E l E d ito r C onstit., No 44, 23 April 1821, p.534-535. DP, Sessions 12& 13, 6 and 9 December 1820. 127 E l E ditor C onstit., No. 42, 9 April 1821, V. 2, p. 517. DP Session, 27 November 1820. Point 2.
271
Salvador cleric who had long-resisted centralized authority in Guatemala, and was resolved using an article o f a decree dated subsequent to the constitution. The indexes o f the sessions o f the 1820 diputacion provincial o f Guatemala are published in El Editor Constitucional. From the consultation (consultas) initiated by Spanish authorities, individuals seeking payment for services rendered the state, and the new constitutional mayors and councils, it was clear that the body had established itself as the legitimate arbiter o f the constitutional laws applied to the kingdoms communities, and specifically to those laws relating to the behavior, activity and responsibilities o f the ayuntamientos constitucionales. As before, the DP also appeared to have the respect and interest o f the multi-province district it served, and not just the capital city it worked in. Although many of the consultas came from the areas immediately surrounding Guatemala, others originated in Choluteca, Corpus, Omoa and Trujillo (Honduras) and even in San Miguel (El Salvador). Thus, for all the agitation by provincial capitals to establish their independent diputaciones, the organized countrysidepriests, governors, and town councilsworked constructively with the extant bodies to resolve disputes with constitutional overtones. By 1820, the return o f the Constitutional system found many o f the same individuals throwing themselves wholeheartedly, for a second time, into the more representative form o f government. However, with the experience of the early years of
128 El Editor Constitucional. p 496. Diputacion Provincial de Guatemala, Session 7, 23 Nov. 1820, Pt. 2. A tied vote on the matter considered article 2 o f a 23 may 1812 Cortes decree that allowed for capitals without their own diputacion to elect representatives until provincial redistricting was complete. The captain general broke the tie, and the diputacion agreed to continue to use the voting schema prepared by the kingdoms preparatory junta until the new provincial distribution was completed.
272
partial implementation and challenges o f innovation, the politically active elite were now in a position to detail the areas that remained for improvement within the Spanish constitutional order. The diputacion provincial o f Guatemala by 1820-1821 was acting much as an independent legislative body, although its limited membership - only 4 deputies and the captain generalwas not intended to function in this way. By March 1821, the diputacion felt it necessary to issue a determination on how the tasks o f governors and town councils were related. The motivation came in order to answer numerous requests by town councils across its jurisdiction (Solola, San Salvador, Comitan, Tuxtla) to distinguish between the old and new officials, and between the new type of division o f powers not by territory but by the type o f power exercised - judicial, economic or political. In its lengthy and reasoned analysis, the diputacion drew from the Constitution and several decrees to chart a path through the minefield of a political system that still combined elements o f both old government and new. The outline o f the hurdles that remained to be crossed accurately depicted the systemic flaws and the challenges that would face independent Central America a mere six months later. In its analysis, the diputacion observed that the territories under its jurisdiction were composed o f three gobiernos subaltemos, the intendancies o f San Salvador, Ciudad Real (Chiapas) and Comayagua, and 11 alcaldias mayores and corregimientos. In the intendancies, the regulation of intendants had divided territory into districts (partidos ) governed by subdelegates (subdelegados) with powers injustice, administration (policia), finance, and war; their immediate chiefs on all matters but justicewhich went to the audienciawere the intendants. Under the Constitution, the
273
diputacion continued, the system adopted was entirely distinct, as it depended on the division o f powers; the desired separation could not be achieved if governors continued to have a role in the execution o f justice, and if judges continued to have a role in the administration of government. According to the diputacion, government remained concentrated in the hands o f the city councils. The constitution and the Instruction of 23 June 1813 both were specific in laying out how to divide political and economic administration, and that o f 9 October 1812 limited justice to a function o f constitutional councils, governors (jefes politicos subaltemos), diputaciones and captains general (jefes politicos superiores). The diputacion also emphasized that the section o f the Constitution devoted to the internal government o f the Provinces and pueblos (Title 6) emphasized that government would be in the control o f ayuntamientos made up o f mayors, aldermen and other officials. In other words, the Constitution did not reduce the responsibility o f the city within government. To back up this argument, the diputacion pointed out that city government answered only to the top governor (jefe politico superior) and that the first mayor o f district centers (cabezas de partidos ) without the subaltern jefe politico, were responsible for circulation all government orders throughout the district, and that it was the ayuntamientos that would in fact publish such orders129 Furthermore, the mayor o f a district capital would preside the electoral councils (juntas electorales) in the absence o f the governor. The diputacion concluded as follows:
129
Documentos Historicos, pp. 50-51, 18 May 1820. Oficio a los Intendentes y Alcaldes Constitucionales. This note informed that the subaltern governor, and in his absence, the first mayor o f cabezas de partido
274
[T]he government, therefore, o f each pueblo is clearly confided to its mayors and ayuntamiento constitucional.. .(T]t would be an error o f the greatest transcendence to maintain that ...they do not have competence in the exercise of the faculties designated by a law made and published expressly to serve as a norm. It also cited Article 5 o f the law o f 9 October, which reads as follows, The mayors, with absolute inhibition o f the jueces de letras and subdelegados o f Ultramar, will undertake (conocerdn ) the government, economy and administration o f their respective pueblos."130 The diputacion used this article, and a decision based on a royal order o f 1805, to argue that once the ayuntamientos constitucionales took office, that all subdelegados, corregidores, and alcaldes mayores should divest themselves o f all responsibilities mentioned in the decree and limit themselves in the future to the administration o f justice in contested cases as that law established.1 3 1 In other words, less than a year before Central Americas independence was to be decided in a referendum held in over 200 ayuntamientos constitucionales located the length and breadth o f the isthmus, the commitment to centering political authority in city councils remained firmly embedded in the minds and actions of the kingdoms elite lawmakers. Politics and government remained and was expected to remain firmly in the hands o f city councils and not the governors who supervised their work. This commitment to the city derived in part from tradition, as the Instructions drafted in 1810
were to circulate orders, including copies o f im presos, in timely fashion to the rest o f their territory, for immediate circulation to the other town councils in their district (p a rtid o ). 130 Los alcaldes, con absoluta inhibicion de los jueces de letras, y subdelegados de Ultramar, conoceran de lo gubemativo, economico y de policia de los pueblos respectivos. Article 5, Law o f 9 October 1813. 1 3 1 The diputacion quoted a p ro vid en cia of the Supremo Gobiemo of 1 March 1806, based on a royal order of 25 June 1805. The sources determined that Article 12 o f the provisions regarding subdelegados applied to the corregidores and a lca ld es m ayores , and that these territories belonged to the intendancy o f the capital (Guatemala City), in the sense that they had the same relation with the captain general that the su b d elg a d o s had with the intendants in the other territories.
275
for by Guatemala Citys Creole aldermen show. Yet, it also stemmed from interpretation of the developing bodies o f law emerging from the Cortes in Spain, as seen in the Instruction prepared by the Junta Preparativa in 1812. If, on the one hand, a new body such as the diputacion provincial was set up to work on regional issues, its deputies were still selected by the principal towns and cities o f their region, and city councils remained the well from which city councilors would select new authorities, such as the judges on freedom o f the press issues. More members o f society on both sides o f the Atlantic engaged regularly in the selection o f local authorities, and more members o f society could serve in official capacity in city councils, whose numbers had multiplied at least tenfold under the Constitution. During the Constitutional years in Central America, elites had experienced government in the Cortes, in the diputaciones provinciales, and in the ayuntamientos constitucionales, as well as in the administrative and gubernatorial positions they had often filled. The castas and some Indians had also had the chance to work in government in these years. Citizenship was still bound to cities, but the familiar tension between provincial districts and cities, and the form of government that would work for both, was still present. When the siren call o f independence finally received a positive answer from the Kingdom o f Guatemala in the fall o f 1821, it was thus the muscular cities that responded definitively in almost all instances, with provincial organization inadequate to the task. And when, a few years later, when it came time to develop a blueprint for independent government, then, it would be impossible to ignore the cities that had been set at the center o f the Spanish constitutional system.
276
Chapter 6 Anarchic Dogma, Natural Liberty, New Societies: The Central American Municipality in Independence, 1821-1823 The hotheads (exaltados) [of Guatemala] founded the anarchic dogma that the pueblos, on becoming independent from Spain, recovered their natural liberty and were free to form new societies according to their convenience in the new order o f things. Manuel Montufar y Coronado, Memorias para la historia de la Revolucion de Centro-america (1832). During the period o f the Mexican Empire, there was no kingdom in Guatemala, nor dependence o f the provinces on their former capital, and with the fall o f [the empire], our pueblos did not present the aspect o f a kingdom ruled by a unitary government, but many fractions dislocated with no center o f unity, for the colonial ties had been entirely broken, and no legitimate power had caused them to be reborn. Mariano Aycinena, Otras Reflexiones sobre Reforma Politico en Centro-America (1833) In September 1821, news of Mexicos declaration o f independence from Spain reached the Kingdom o f Guatemala, precipitating that colonys independence and unleashing a crisis o f government. In the two-year interregnum that followed, Central Americas towns and cities governed in the countryside, debated the political future of the former kingdom, and voted with words and guns to support regional capitals in their quests to remain with or separate from colonial capital Guatemala City and the new Mexican empire. This interregnum was city governments finest and worst moment. Elite urban city councils and small poor town councils demonstrated their ability to act independently to protect local and advance or skewer state and national interests. In this brief, chaotic two-year period alliances were made and broken which would
277
determine the effective political boundaries between the states that emerged to join the Central American Federation that existed, tenuously, between 1825 and 1839. This chapter chronicles the process by which municipalities from Chiapas to San Jose became the focal points o f the consolidation and disintegration o f independent Central America. Declarations of Independence Independence in Central America was a matter o f municipal pronouncement and coordination among extant authorities on a case-by-case basis rather than a concerted decision made in one place by one person or group o f persons. As news o f Mexicos decision reached city and village, open and closed sessions o f city councils discussed options available. With the other authorities present in each townranging from diputaciones provinciates, bishops and governors to low-level Spanish bureaucrats, local clerics and military mencity councils deliberated and decided their future. Whichever groups were represented in the discussions, the city council issued the declaration, either on its own or jointly with a diputacion provincial. In what at first glance appears to be a domino effect, one by one, provincial and intendancy capitals declared independence as news moved from north to south in September and October 1821 (See Table 6.1). Yet by examining the terms o f those declarations including whether the independence sought was from Spain, Mexico or Guatemala it becomes clear that while the elites o f each community favored political change, the nature o f that desired change varied from place to place. Each provincial capital, and its satellite villas took decisions not simply about the terms of independence
278
from Spain, but also attempted to influence the organization o f a post-independent polity that did not duplicate lines o f power o f the colonial period that had concentrated church, government and commerce in Guatemala City. Although there was agreement that independence from Spain was an appropriate step to take there is no record that any of the important town councils seriously considered insisting on official union with the Spanish governmentthere was discord on what the next step would be. Thus, while Central American governments have celebrated the 15th o f September as their date of independence since 1821, this date does not represent the date when a united group of deputies representing all o f the former Kingdom o f Guatemalas provinces officially opted for independence. In fact, it does not even represent the first such declaration.
279
Table 6.1: Selected Declarations of Independence, Central America, 1821-1822

C ity Comitan Ciudad Real San Salvador Guatemala Metapan Comayagua |
Province
Chiapas Chiapas El Salvador Guatemala El Salvador Honduras
Date 1821
August 28 September 3,8 Sept 14,21 September IS September 25 September 28 September 28 September 28 September? October 4 October 4 October 11,21 October October 13 October 22 October 29 October 30 Late October November 1 November 1 November 4 November 13 November 29 December December 7 December 8 December 9 December 18 December 18 December 23 December 29
Actors
CC-City Council CC,Gvr, Ch-Church CC, Gvr, Ch, M CC, Gvr, Ch, M, DP CC, vecinos CC, Gvr-Govemor, DP, Ch, Hac, Pueblo CC, DP, Ch, Gvr CC CC CC, M-Military CC DP (Acta Leon) Gvr, CC, Ch, M, B CC Cartago; reps, of other towns CC, Junta Gbno CC CC-Cabildo abierto CC-Cabildo abierto CC CC
Decision
Indep. From Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Guate. Guate. *p Spain, Mx Spain, Mx Spain Spain Spain *p Spain *p Spain *p Joins: Mexico Mexico
Leon Nicaragua Tegucigalpa Honduras Gracias, Los Llanos, Cueyagua Honduras Granada Nicaragua Masaya Nicaragua Leon Nicaragua Heredia Costa Rica Cartago Costa Rica Ciudad Real Chiapas Cartago, San Jose, Alajuela & Heredia Costa Rica Comayagua Honduras Alajuela Costa Rica Juticalpa Honduras San Jose Costa Rica San Jose Quezaitenango Huehuetenango Omoa San Vicente Usulutan Retahuleu Cartago San Salvador Tegucigalpa Guatemala City Costa Rica Guatemala Guatemala Honduras El Salvador El Salvador Guatemala Costa Rica El Salvador Honduras Guatemala
Spain *t Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Mexico Acta Leon Acta Leon Mexico Acta Leon (Nic) Mexico CR Gu; Com.
Spain Spain, Mexico Abs. Ind. Guate. Guate;Tot. Spain, Mx Mexico
Mexico Mexico Guatemala
CC CC CC CC CC CC CC, Gvr, public CC-Cabildo abierto CC-poll
Mx. w.CA Mexico Mexico Mex, Gu Let Junta decide Mexico
280
Table 6.1: Selected Declarations of Independence, Central America, 1821-1822 (cont.)

1822 Trujillo Honduras CC Spain, Mx Guatemala January Cartago Costa Rica January 22 CC Mexico San Salvador CC, Jta Cslt,Gvr El Salvador January 11 Guate. Santa Ana, San Miguel, CC, Gvr? Mexico January Sonsonate El Salvador San Jose Costa Rica Ind. .Rep. February 18 Abbreviations: Un-Union, Indep-Independence; DP-Diputacion Provincial, Hac-Hacienda Sources: Monterey, H istoria de E l Salvador-, Filisola, La C ooperacion d e Mexico-, Rodriguez, The Cadiz E x p e rim e n t in C entral America, Ch. 7; Melendez, Independencia d e C entroam erica, Ch. 4, pp. 186-199; Taracena, In vencion Criolla, p.92; Juan & Gamboa, La In d ep en d en cia d e C hiapas, Ch. 4.
The first cities on the mail circuit to receive and react to news o f Mexicos final independence from Spain and an invitation to join the new Mexican Empire were the three municipalities of Chiapas: Ciudad Real, Tuxtla and Comitan, which declared their independence from Spain in late August and early September. Setting a precedent for municipal reaction, the first official declaration came not from the province capital, Ciudad Real, but from one o f its smaller towns, Comitan. On 28 September, Comitans syndics, noting the advance o f the Mexican army and fearing its immediate arrival, proposed a cabildo abierto to discuss how to respond. In a defensive reaction, twentyeight residents voted to put the town and its district (comprehension) under the protection of the new government, declaring, if [the Mexican government] wills, independence, so that the superior force, when it arrives, as it indubitably will, shall do no violence or harm, leaving the rest o f the appropriate steps for the Jefe Superior o f this Kingdom. The city council signed the declaration.1 Decision in hand, the council wrote to announce their admittedly limited decision to the Mexican general leading the independence movement, Agustin de Iturbide; the intendant o f Chiapas, Juan
281
Nepomuceno Batres, o f Guatemalan origin; and the other ayuntamientos o f the intendancy. In short order, a small town had opened the floodgates that unleashed the process o f independence in Central America. A week later, Ciudad Real, drew from mechanisms o f the colonial period and the Spanish constitutional monarchy to respond to the momentous political news. The governor, town council and bishop o f Ciudad Real, the capital o f Chiapas representatives o f the traditional institutionsmet in a cabildo abierto to determine the communitys official reaction. In this case, as in most o f those that followed, only representatives o f elite institutions officially deliberated the political possibilities, with artisans groups and other popular groups kept at the margins o f debate. The Ciudad Real authorities, considering their shared border and commercial ties with Veracruz, Mexico, rapidly determined to adhere to the Mexican decision.2 The city councils o f Tuxtla and Comitan followed suit with official declarations o f independence days later. Having reached a decision, the Ciudad Real authorities took an oath (juramento) o f independence on 8 Sepetember, much as they had taken an oath o f loyalty to kings and to the Spanish constitution in earlier periods, only now, they declared their Capital and
1Acta de independencia de Comitan" in Jesus Aquino Juan and Arturo Corzo Gamboa, La independencia d e C hiapas y su s a n exio n es a M exico (1821-1824) (Tuxtla Gutierrez (Chiapas, Mexico): Universidad Autonoma, 1994), Appendix 1, pp. 283-284. 2 See General Manuel Mier y Teran to Agustin de Iturbide, 24 October 1821, Ciudad Real Chiapas, for a discusion o f Chiapas' economic and political ties to Mexico. This letter is reprinted in Jorge Lujan Munoz, La Independencia y la A n exio n C entroam ericana a M exico (Guatemala: Serviprensa, 1982), pp. 163-166.
282
its great province o f las Chiapas" independent.3 These procedures would repeat in town after town in the Central American isthmus over the next two months. Although the ceremonies followed by Chiapas were traditional in nature, their content was nonetheless remarkable. The duly-constituted authorities o f Chiapas felt they had the authority to make a momentous decision on their own, for their communities alone, without feeling constrained to wait for guidance or approval either from the colony capital or from a preponderance o f the colonys town and provincial governments. Although a province within a kingdom, Chiapas and its local governors were not technically empowered to take political decisions o f this magnitude. Furthermore, the royally-appointed governor and bureaucrats assigned to Chiapas ought to have opposed rather than facilitated the declaration of independence, even in the face o f the decision o f the new viceroy o f Mexico to accept his territorys secession from the Spanish Empire. Yet at no point did any o f the other cities, governors, provincial authorities or royal officials o f Central America draw attention to these facts. Instead, Chiapas declaration, as we shall see below, served as the match that set off a conflagration o f similar declarations from municipalities big and small down the isthmus. Historians have agreed that Scholastic thought provides the political foundations for this type o f extremely local political judgment. By breaking the social compact with the Spanish king, the people could reassume popular sovereignty and the right to
3 See Juan and Gamboa, La independencia de Chiapas y sus anexiones a Mexico, Chapter 4, for discusion of Ciudad Reals independence. They claim that the official date of the declaration, 8 September, was in fact the date o f the oath taken to protect independence, and that the city councils act was on 3 Sept 1821.
283
make political decisions because they had resumed their natural liberty. Contemporaries certainly used this language. Yet the implications o f the particular and narrow interpretations of the compact are still worth underlining. Firstly, each town to withdraw from the Spanish empire reflected a specific form o f understanding o f the people involved. Arturo Taracena suggests that each pueblo meant, in fact, the larger municipal district familiar from earlier periods, each principal city with its territory and dependent pueblos." Chiapas coordination o f the declarations o f each important town certainly support such a thesis. Nonetheless, histories o f this period have analyzed only the decisions of the cabeceras, implying that the smaller towns had no voice in the decision. Furthermore, independence-minded Central American elites included in this community not just the native-born and immigrants who had taken up permanent residence, but also the Spanish officials they kept in government posts. Secondly, by limiting the people in each instance to those o f one town, the actors rejected not only officials in Spain but the political system that had functioned to unite towns in the Kingdom o f Guatemala since 1542 and the intendancy system which refined it in the 1780s.4 Popular sovereignty implied local, municipal authority; all other compacts were voluntary alliances.
4 Manuel Montufar y Coronado, one of the earliest chroniclers o f independent Central America, wrote that the most enthusiastic proponents of independence in Guatemala founded the anarchic dogma that the pueblos, on becoming independent from Spain, had recovered their natural liberty, and were free to form new socities according to their convenience in the new order o f things. Montufar, M em orias p a ra la historia de la R evolucion d e Centro-america. (Guatemala: Tipografia Sanchez y De Guise, 1934), p. 50. Modem scholars reiterating this analysis for Latin America and Central America, respectively, include O. Carlos Stoetzer, The Scholastic Roots o f the Spanish A m erican R evolutions (New York: Fordham University Press, 1979) and Xiomara Avendafio Rojas, Procesos Electorates y Clase Politica en la Federacion de Centroamerica, 1810-1840 , unpublished doctoral dissertation. Mexico (DF), Colegio de Mexico, 1994, Chapter 2. Stoetzer argues that the pactum translatic.iis o f medieval Spanish thought, that
284
Reflecting the remarkable nature o f Chiapas decision was the role reversal by which Chiapas became the instigator o f change within the Kingdom of Guatemala, rather than the recipient of news from the capital. After swearing independence, the cabildos o f Ciudad Real and Tuxtla wrote to Guatemala City and to other city councils in the isthmus to communicate the news o f their adhesion to Mexicos independence, and enclosed a certification from the town o f Comitan to demonstrate the unity o f the provinces three cabildos. The letters stated that due to a general accord o f all the vecinos, they had sworn independence from Spain, and would preserve their religions, civil and ecclesiastic laws and defend property o f their new citizens with just laws that did not distinguish between classes and place o f origin. Ciudad Real further hoped to stimulate the inhabitants o f the other cities to participate in the same liberty and happiness o f which the province o f Chiapas is in possession.5 While correspondence between town councils had long served as a means o f exchange o f information, Ciudad Reals exhortation o f other cabildos, in particular the kingdom capital Guatemala City, represents the first example of a provincial capital taking the lead not to seek the capitals advice on a political matter but to attempt to influence through example. Traditionally, provincial towns sought guidance from the capital on the implementation
is, the return o f political power to the people when the contract with the king has been broken, was what shaped nineteenth-century Spanish American political decision-making. Others who have picked up the pactist argument include Franijois-Xavier Guerra, M o d e m id a d e Independencia. Ensayos so b re la s revoluciones hispanoam ericanos. (Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 1992), Chapter 9; and Arturo Taracena Arriola, Invencidn Criolla, Sueno L adino. P esadilla Indigena: Los A lto s d e G uatem ala, d e region a E stado, 1740-1850 (Antigua, Guatemala: CIRMA, 1997), p. 67. 5 AGCA A 1.44 Leg. 2194, Exp. 15748, Book 2, ff. 23v-24, Actas de Cabildo, 1821, September 14 1821. Guatemala City received and considered these letters on 14 September 1821.
285
o f regulations or other administrative matters.6 Here Chiapas had not only informed its neighbors o f its independence, but demonstrated the means used to achieve it and explained the legal and social bases on which that independence was meant to rest. Thus, by the time the mail reached Guatemala City, on September 13, the capital was required to react rather than lead. A quick decision had to be reached. Would the colonial capital endorse Chiapas precipitous decision or reject it? Rumors of the Mexican break with Spain had run rife in the city since August, and the city council had already attempted to convince the captain general to support independence on September 4.7 Popular attention to the issue was also increasing. The city council recorded an increase in political broadsides and petty crime associated with Mexicos upheaval since August.8 In a session o f September 14, 1821, the Guatemala City council opened and considered the Ciudad Real and Tuxtla city council letters.9 Before the city council could act in response to this extraordinary news, Captain General Gabino Gainza, in receipt o f the same letters, saw that independence was likely at this point, with or without his participation. He thus convoked the same kind o f cabildo
6 AGCA A 1.44 Legajo 2194, Expediente 15748, ff. 119v-120, Actas de Cabildo, 1821, 21 May 1821, pa 5. A more traditional letter is that o f Santa Ana to Guatemala City in May 1821, asking for news o f events in Mexico and guidance on preparing instructions to the Santa Ana deputy to Spains Cortes o f 1822-1823. 7 AGCA A 1.44, Legajo 2194, Expediente 15748, f. 72. Actas de Cabildo, 1821, September 4, 1821, Sess. 72, para. 2. Captain General Gavino Gainza attended the meeting to discuss rumors that a petition for independence circulated in the capital and to seek to end it. The syndic, Mariano Aycinena, informed Gainza that "general opinion of this capital favored independence, and that the petition sought Gainzas support for the decision to avoid a popular commotion." After a discussion characterized as attentive and mature, the council decided simply to act to preserve public order, one of its principal attributions." 8 AGCA A 1.44, Legajo 2194, Expediente 15748, Actas de Cabildo, 1821, Book 2, f. 17, pa. 6. September 31. Mayor Mariano Larrave noted the increase o f rumors (habiillas ) and broadsheets (pasquines) attacking both European and American Spaniards and attributed them to the lower orders (el pueblo bajoi). The council determined in future to take action to fulfill its obligation to assure order and security. 9 AGCA A 1.44 Legajo 2194, Exp. 15748, Book 2, ff. 23v-24, Actas de Cabildo, 1821, 14 Sept. 1821.
286
abierto that had already taken place in Chiapas for the following day in hopes o f achieving a similar consensual decision. Clearly, in Guatemala City as in Chiapas, elites did not evince an appetite to take on Spanish authorities to achieve independence, and once again, Spanish authorities failed to present stiff resistance to inclusion in the organization and implementation o f independence. Only a negotiated and joint solution appealed, and the timing was propitious to achieve one. Although the overall strategy o f the Guatemala City leadership paralleled that o f Chiapas, there were certain distinctions both in form and content o f the meeting that reflected this particular citys role as kingdom capital. The number o f colonial corporations, or official institutions, was significantly greater in the capital. Thus, Gainza could not include each individual member o f each institution in the deliberations. On September 15, he instead called together two representatives each for the principal authorities o f the kingdomthe archbishop and ecclesiastical council, the diputacion provincial, the audiencia, merchants guild, lawyers college, and ranking military and finance officialsto ponder the question o f how to respond to the news. Only one exception was made, in order to seat a greater number o f members o f the city council, which at first insisted on sending the entire body, as all members were dulyelected representatives o f the city. After consultation with Gainza, the cabildo agreed, in the end, to send a delegation composed o f one mayor, two aldermen and the two syndics, on the same partial footing as the other institutions, although with five rather than two members in attendance.10
10 AGCA A 1.44 Legajo 2184, Exp. 15748, Book 2, ff. 23v. Actas de Cabildo, 1821, 14 September 1821.
287
Also distinct from Chiapas proceeding was the coordination o f the declaration o f independence with an attempt to create an interim junta that could claim to represent not just one town, or the united towns o f one province, but the entire collection o f provinces that had made up the Kingdom of Guatemala. Gainza and the cabildo abierto determined to make the Diputacion Provincial (DP) a governing body, the Junta Provisional Consultiva (JPC). Under the Spanish system, this DP had represented only Guatemala and El Salvador, so the JPC immediately inducted representatives for Guatemalas interior provinces, and for Nicaragua, Chiapas, and Honduras, to indicate not only the willingness o f the capital to share political power with provincial representatives, but to underline Guatemalas intent to hold together the territory o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala, and to anchor whatever polity should emerge. Named in the declaration of independence, the distinguished provincianos selected for the JPC were men who had made their careers in the kingdom capital, rather than elected representatives of the provinces.11 Although only Chiapas official repudiated its new representative, preferring to send a delegate directly to Mexico, the legitimacy o f the
1 1 The six men added to the J u n ta P rovisional C onsultiva were among the most distinguished and welleducated men the colony had to offer. Three clericsthe Marques of Aycinena, Jose Valdes, and Angel Maria Candinarepresented Quezaltenango, Solola and Chimaltenango, and Sonsonate, respectively. Lawyers Jose Cecilio del Valle, o f Tegucigalpa, represented Honduras and Miguel de Larreinaga, an o id o r of the audiencia bom in Nicaragua, represented that province. Lawyer Antonio Robles, a Chiapasbom mayor of the Guatemala City municipal council, represented his native province. The g o b ie m o of Costa Rica, notably, did not merit a representative. Guatemala City, Declaration o f Independence, 15 September 1821, Art.8, reprinted in Carlos Melendez, ed., Textos F undam entales de la Independencia C entroam ericana (San Jose: Editorial Universitaria, 1971), pp. 242-245.
288
junta was called into question by the other DPs operating in the Kingdom o f Guatemala in 1821, as we shall see below.1 2 As in Chiapas, no other change in political organization followed. Captain General Gainza retained his position as interim political and military leader, using the title o f jefepolitico superior accorded to him under the Spanish Constitution, and the Spanish colonial bureaucracy remained in place. All laws, ordinances and orders formerly in effect would remain so and any that could not be reformed would be abrogated by the new national congress summoned by the declaration o f independence. Similarly, independence did not mean elections of new city councils, and those in authority retained their central role as guarantor o f public order. Gainza underlined the continuity and the mutual support o f the two branches o f government when he called on inhabitants to show due respect for constitutional mayors, and other authorities, as well as to the Aldermen, who help them in their patrols to keep quiet and public tranquility. 1 3 As city council books from Guatemala City, Antigua, and Sonsonate show, the council in fact carried out this role. For the balance o f 1821, city councils continued to manage the minutiae o f municipal administration, staffed by the same mayors, aldermen, and agents that they had elected or named at the beginning o f the year.1 4
1 2 Avendano, Procesos Electorates, p. 60. By 29 September, the cabildo of Chiapas had issued instructions to its deputy to Mexico, Pedro Solorzano. 1 3 Full text o f the Bando of 17 September 1821 can be found in Melendez, ed., Textos Fundamentales, pp. 252-254. The relative points are treated in Articles 2 and 10. 1 4 AGCA A1.44 Legajo 2194, Expediente 15748. Guatemala City, Actas de Cabildo, 1821. Archivo Municipal (Antigua, Guatemala), Antigua, Libro de Actas, 1821. AGN, Seccion Colonial, Caja 1, Carpeta 4. Sonsonate, Libro de Actas, 1820-1821.
289
The Guatemalan decision in favor o f independence also required dissemination. Within 24 hours, Jose Cecilio del Vallea native o f Honduras, former mayor of Guatemala City, long-time official in Guatemalas Spanish bureaucracy, newspaper editor, and statesman15composed Central Americas second declaration o f independence. Although all o f the colonial institutions were represented in the debate on the political future o f Guatemala and Central America, this declaration was signed only by the political authorities recognized as representative o f the people: Gainza, the members o f the JPC, and the individuals of the city council. Just as the junta set up in Guatemala City pretended to kingdom-wide authority, the Guatemala City declaration o f independence differed from that o f Chiapas in that it claimed to represent the general will o f the people of Guatemala, meaning the Kingdom o f Guatemala. Whereas Ciudad Real o f Chiapas had written to Guatemala, and certainly.. .to other town councils, urging the capital to proclaim and swear its independence, this city had spoken only for its district and presented no program to coordinate what would follow. In contrast, the Guatemala City declaration o f independence had been agreed by this Provincial Deputation and the individuals o f the excellent Ayuntamiento," and thus could claim broader representation. Further, the undertone o f the arguments reflected the participants sense that the decision being made by the two legitimate native political institutionscapital city and provincial deputationwould set the ground rules for the rest o f the cities in the colony for their
1 5 Jose Cecilio del Valle had been mayor o f Guatemala City from January to mid-May, 1821, when he resigned to accept a royal appointment as war auditor (auditor de guerra). Royal officials could not sit on the city council (see Chapter 2). AGCA, A 1.2.2, Legajo 2194, Exp. 15748, Actas de Cabildo, 1821.
290
subsequent political decisions. These ground rules ranged from presuming a united political future for the territory, selecting the electoral system to be used and even which ethnic groups to include as part o f the citizenry. Rather than seconding the Chiapas exhortation to each city to meet and act individually, the Guatemalan declaration, in its second article, proposed a plan that would ensure a properlyorganized independence. This article called for the rest o f the provinces to elect deputies and representatives to form a Congress in the capital to decide the point of independence and to fix, in the case that it is agreed upon, the form o f government and fundamental law that should rule. The meeting was set for March 1, 1822, a date that would permit ample time for both elections o f representatives and travel to the capital for even the most distant districts. The third article indicated that Guatemala City expected the current legal system, that is, the Spanish Constitution o f 1812 and subsequent legislation of the Spanish Cortes, to continue in effect in the interim period. This article called for application o f the Spanish constitutional electoral rules to the election o f representatives to the Guatemalan assembly. Only one change was made. The long-desired inclusion o f the castas within the electoral body was authorized. The fourth article modified the electoral rules to call for one deputy for each 15,000 individuals without excluding from citizenship those o f African origin."16
1 6 Act o f Independence, Guatemala City, 15 September 1821. Full text o f the Declaration of Independence can be found in Melendez, ed., Textos Fundamentales, pp. 242-245. The act was signed by [captain general] Gabino Gainza, Mariano de Beltranena, Jose Mariano Calderon, Jose Matias Delgado, Antonio de Rivera, Manuel Antonio de Molina, Ysidoro del Valle y Castriciones, Mariano de Aycinena, Jose Domingo Dieguez, Jose Antonio de Larrave, Pedro de Arroyave, and city council secretary Lorenzo de Romaha.
291
The Guatemala City declaration o f independence appears, from the distance o f almost two hundred years, to be a moderate document, for it neither specified a political future for the entire colony nor suggested a form o f government. The declaration o f September 15 simply informed of Chiapas and Guatemala Citys votes for independence, and called on the rest o f the kingdom to participate in a congress to determine if, in fact, the whole would become independent from Spain and, if independence was determined, to fix the form of government and fundamental laws that would replace the former Spanish system. Until such a congress could convene, the only measure the national ayuntamiento took in addition to holding the individual oaths of loyalty to the new government, was to begin a new book o f acts using common paper, rather than the sealed paper that reflected dependency on Spanish domination.17 The moderation won a favorable response from some o f the nearer cities and provinces. The ayuntamiento o f Antigua Guatemala, the city council established in 1799 in the former colonial capital, met on September 19 to discuss the separate receipt o f the declaration from Gainza and the Guatemala City council. In four brief paragraphs, Antiguas councilmen allocated 200 pesos to celebrate independence, with 50 going to the capital and 150 to pay for festivities in Antigua. They then agreed to preside over the proceedings in their blue and white uniforms, and agreed to send a letter to the excellent ayuntamiento that this [council] always proposes to unite its
17 Full text of the Treaties of Cordoba (Tratados de Cordoba) can be found in Melendez, ed., Textos Fundamentales. pp. 226-230.
292
votes with theirs.
1fi
In its next meeting, the Antigua council resumed administration o f
the items that usually appeared on the municipal agendarunning the meat and city markets, repairing a failing water system, improving care o f prisoners, acknowledging receipt o f new legislationas if no further consideration o f independence was necessary. Loyal and apparently unperturbed by such a momentous decision, the cabildantes o f Antigua represented for the Guatemala City elites an ideal collaborator. Even more troublesome districts seemed to accept the conditions suggested by the capital. At 9 p.m. on 21 September, San Salvador received the news o f our independence and liberty. As in Guatemala and Chiapas, and befitting a provincial capital, intendant Pedro Barriere and alcalde primero Casimiro Garcia Valdeavellano, convoked the ayuntamiento, military leaders, vicar and parish priests, and all classes o f vecinos principales" to a general ceremony o f rejoicing and a te deum celebrated in the parish church. This public act was followed immediately, at the intendants insistence, that the mayor receive his oath o f loyalty to guard and protect independence, be faithful to the American monarchy, and to observe the government it establishes and the laws that are sanctioned. The city council took its oath the following day, alongside officials o f the Spanish and colonial bureaucracy; the pueblo was to make its official oath a week later.19 Although by January o f 1822, San Salvador had erected a
1 8 Archivo Municipal (Antigua, Guatemala). Libro de Actas, 1821, f. 53. 19 September 1821, Para. 4. The councilors present on this occasion were: Mayors Tomas Arroyave and Juan de Dios Menendez; aldermen Joaquin Ferrer, Manuel Mendoza, Marcos Morales, Francisco Ximenez and Romero; and Syndics Miguel Galvez and Mariano Fernandez. 1 9 Act o f Independence, San Salvador, 21 September 1821. Full text in found in Melendez, ed., Textos Fundamentales, pp. 266-268. Signed: Barriere, and the cabildo: Casimiro Garcia Valdeavellano and Jose Ignacio Zaldana, Jose Rosi, Millan Bustos, Geronimo Ajuria, Francisco Del Duque, Santiago Rosi, Trinidad Estupinian, Juan Bautista Otondo, Francisco Ignacio de Urrutia, and Narciso Ortega.
293
breakaway diputacion provincial and had totally separated from the government in Guatemala City in opposition to that citys decision to declare for Mexico as well as to promote its own ardently-desired bishopric, the initial declaration of independence did not test the ties that bound San Salvador to Guatemala.20 Equally encouraging for the capital must have been the receipt o f over 30 letters from ayuntamientos constitucionales small and large, from as far away as Nicaragua, supporting independence. Not just the five capitals o f Leon, Comayagua, San Salvador, Chiapas and Cartago were taking active part in this decision making; the provincial and district cabeceras o f the provinces o f Quezaltenango, Chimaltenango, Sonsonate, San Salvador, Tegucigalpa, Comayagua, and Nicaragua did so as well. In most cases, the respondents offered their support for Guatemala City. Only in one instance did a city council find the need to discuss a rejection o f its position. A trend that emerged in the pattern o f responses, however, foreshadowed the process in which smaller towns would commit to one side or another in a political, economic or military conflict based on either adhesion or opposition to the local cabecera.21 Since the Guatemala City council had no official role to play, rather than respond to each letter, it simply added them to a
20 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 165, no 323, 22 January 1822, Gabino Gainza al Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa; and Monterey, H istoria d e E l S a lvador , p. 75. The DP o f San Salvador had written to Gainza on the 14th o f January informing o f the decision taken on January 11 by the city council, intendant and ju n ta consultiva. In this decision, San Salvador argued that the ju n ta o f Guatemala had thus ceased to exist, erected itself in a ju n ta p ro visio n a l g u b e m a tiva , and declared itself politically and economically independent o f Guatemala. 2 1 For example, Honduran capital Comayagua's letters accompanied cabildo letters from Llanos de Santa Rosa, Gracias and Danli. Tegucigalpa, capital o f a breakaway Honduran province, remitted letters with Danli, Gotera, Olocuilta, and Santa Catarina Mita. Similarly, on 23 October, letters arrived from Metapan, Gotera, Mixco, and Chalatenango, and on 3 November letters from Gotera, Olocuilta, and Santa Catarina Mita. AGCA, Actas de Cabildo, 1821. Sessions 89, 23 October, p. 38 and 99, 3 November, p. 44.
294
file it was organizing. Only an offer o f arms made by the villa o f San Vicente in San Salvador province received a letter o f thanks.22 In the first few weeks o f independence, then, it seemed as if the cities and towns o f Central America not only had the official responsibility to make momentous decisions, but also the maturity and strength to do so without provoking disintegration o f political authority and disruption o f the social order. This initial impression, unfortunately, was not slated to last much beyond the six to eight weeks it took the news to reach the more distant settlements o f the isthmus. Further south, the first declaration o f independence from Spain proved to be also the first official notification o f a break with the government in Guatemala City, and a foreshadowing o f divisions to come as principal cities within each province sought to change their political affiliations or status. One aspect o f the seemingly moderate Guatemalan declaration was particularly ill-received. As Table 6.2 shows, by August 1821, diputaciones provinciates (DPs) already operated in the provinces o f Leon, and Chiapas and Comayagua, approved by the Spanish Cortes o f 1812 and 1820 respectively. The move in Guatemala City to
Between 27 September, the first meeting held by the Guatemala City ayuntamiento after the declaration o f independence, and 4 November, 30 cities and towns wrote indicating their favorable reaction to independence and divergent views on whether to continue as a Central American unit and whether to join Mexico or not. Quezaltenango (Session 77, 27 September, para. 4, p. 24v) initially sought to determine whether or not Guatemala had declared independence, and later sought to separate from its political dependence on the capital city. By early October, San Salvador, San Vicente, San Miguel, Zacatecoluca, and Santa Ana in the province o f San Salvador, and Sonsonate, Quaginiquilapa, Chimaltenango, Huehuetenango, and Antigua Guatemala in that o f Guatemala, had informed o f their proclamations of independence (Session 82 and 84, 5 and 8? October, pa 2 and 7, p. 30v, 32). By the middle o f the month, Leon (Nicaragua), Pueblo de la Concepcion, San Antonio, San Andres, San Marcos de Mazatenango, Mataquesquinta, and San Vicente had all sworn independence, and, with the exception o f Leon, union with Guatemala City (Session 82, 16 October, pa 4, 35v-6) San Vicente offered arms to the capital,
295
expand the representation o f its own DP, however inclusive it might have appeared in the capital, seemed in the provinces to be an effort to recapture political ascendancy. It thus met with resistance for it would mean not greater autonomy and representation, but less for residents of the three intendancies immediately affected.23 No group o f elites in any o f the seats o f the DPs expressed willingness to abandon the status so recently and determinedly achieved through the Spanish constitutional system over the equally recent and determined opposition o f Guatemala.24
indicating loyalty to Guatemala City over its local cabecera , San Salvador, and merited in return a letter o f thanks. 23 Avendaiio, Procesos Electorales, p. 58. The Cortes on 14 May 1821 authorized, in response to petitions initiated by the Central American deputies o f 1810-1814 and renewed by their successors of 1820-1821, a DP for each o f the provinces o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala. 24 See Rodriguez, The Cadiz Experiment, p. 141-142, for discussion o f the provincianos' lobbying o f the Cortes and Guatemala's opposition.
296
Table 6.2: Juntas Gubernativas, Central America, 1821-1823

City Guatemala City Chiapas Comayagua
Province
Guatemala Chiapas Honduras
Junta
Diputacion Provincial *Junta Provisional Consultiva -JPC Diputacion Provincial Junta Consultiva Diputacion Provincial Junta Provincial Junta de Gobiemo Independiente Diputacion Provincial Junta Gubernativa Junta Gubernativa Subaltema Junta Consultiva del Gobiemo de la Provincia de S. Salvador; Congreso Provincial Junta de Legados; Junta Superior Gubernativa Junta (authorized by JPC)
Date established
7/1820 (old); 11/7 (new) 9/16/1821-2/21/1822 August 1821 September 1821 November 1820-Mar 1821 1-28 September 1821 28 September 182125 Oct. 1820-March 1823 17 April 18234 October (auth. in G.C.); Jan. 1822-1823 (operated) 9/30/1821: arrested; 11/28, new eln; 1/11/ 1822-11/1/ 1822-2/21/1823 12 November 1821; 13 January 1822 16 November 1821-
Leon Granada San Salvador
Nicaragua Nicaragua El Salvador
Cartago (rotate) Quezaltenango
Costa Rica Guatemala
* Originated as a diputacion provincial under the Spanish Constitution, in operation, 1820-1821 Sources: See Table 5.1, Avendafio, Procesos Electorales, pp. 58, 67, & Molina, El Editor Constitucional. Copies o f the Guatemala and Chiapas declarations o f independence arrived in Comayagua early in the morning o f 28 September. Having read them, the ayuntamiento o f Comayagua agreed upon independence and convinced the Comayagua intendant, Jose Tinoco, to agree as well. After the councils decision, Tinoco convoked the familiar complement o f local authorities the city council, the provincial deputation, and other religious and royal officialsto affirm the decision, which was then made public as they all took an oath o f loyalty to the new government. Underlining the ayuntamiento's official role as representative political institution, the city mayor administered Tinocos oath. Whereas in Chiapas, Guatemala and El Salvador only political ties with Spain were severed, Tinoco and the Comayagua elites put Guatemala on notice that its ties to the Spanish choice for kingdom capital were also under siege.
297
The declaration stated that Comayagua would become subject only to the Superior Government established in its place for America Septentrionala territory defined by the Spanish Constitution o f 1812 as Mexico, Guatemala and Spains Caribbean islands.25 In other words, in the interim, Comayagua would not consider itself tied to Guatemala as its capital. The declaration did, however, call for Comayagua to participate in the assembly convoked for March 1822. In all other ways, Comayaguas reaction mirrored those o f the rest of the cities of Central America. The diputacion provincial would become a de facto council o f state in the new system, while the ayuntamiento and the jefe politico" (Tinoco) maintained responsibility for keeping tranquility.26 Leon, capital o f Nicaragua, produced the only act o f independence signed by a diputacion provincial, rather than a city council and additional authorities. Leon was also the first to declare explicit and absolute independence from Guatemala which it appears has erected itself as sovereign (Article 1). In fact, Leons separation from Spanish governance was not only secondary to independence from Guatemala, but couched as temporary independence, until the clouds pass (Article 2), earning this proclamation the nickname o f the Cloudy Act (Acta de los Nublados). Like the other separatist acts, Leons kept the extant authorities in their positions (Article 3). This DP argued in later manifestos designed to convince its interior towns and districts o f the
25 Constitution Politico de la Monarquia Espanola, 1812, Title 2, Ch. 1, Art. 10. Mexico (New Spain) was broken into its constituent parts : New Spain, New Galicia, the Yucatan Peninsula, and Provincias Intemas. The Caribbean islands were Cuba, Santo Domingo, Puerto Rico and adjacent islands. 26Acta de Independencia de al Provincia de Comayagua, 28 September 1821. Full text in found in Melendez, ed., Textos Fundamentales, pp. 270-272.
298
legality of this independence, that it was using faculties granted by the laws o f Spain but had not passed these limits.27 Guatemalas declaration o f independence had arrived, the DP pointed out, after its own 28 September decision, with its own independent government already in operation. Furthermore, Leon stated specifically that Guatemalas independence from Spain had destroyed the social compact that had united it with the rest o f the provinces o f the former kingdom o f Guatemala, and refused to undertake the new contract that would have been required to reform the broken ties. Leon rejected the Congress called by the Guatemalans on the grounds that first, the governor in Guatemala looked after Guatemala Citys interests at the expense o f the provinces; and second, that the former Kingdom o f Guatemala could not aspire to be an independent power, for lack o f education (ilustracion ), riches and power; backwardness in the sciences, arts, commerce and agriculture, and for possessing a populace dispersed in small and remote locations.28 Leons DP, also, was the first to circulate its agreement throughout the province with language indicating its intent not just to inform but also to ensure obedience
11 Melendez, ed., Textos F undam entales, p. 242. "8 Manifiesto de la Diputacion Provincial de Leon a Sus Provincias de Nicaragua y Costa Rica, 7 February 1822, in Filisola, La C ooperacion d e M exico, pp. 231, 233 [227-248]. The DP stated more explicitly (p. 236), The rest o f the pu eb lo s and provinces o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala became, because o f this development [Guatemalas declaration o f independence from Spain], separated from the superior authorities resident there [in Guatemala], and their officials reassumed the power that the laws granted them for their respective jurisdictions. The J e fe P olitico o f Leon commanded (mandaba) in politics, economics, and government, under the Spanish Constitutional system, in the entirety o f [Leons] territory, and the changes (n ovedades ) in [Guatemala City] in no way altered, nor could alter, nor reduce his functions. Thus, considering himself possessed o f the authority, he found no inconvenience in resolving, first, that the Province was absolutely separated from dependency on Guatemala, and provisionally from the peninsula, with which communication was obstructed due to political circumstances.
299
(Article 5).29 Such obedience would not be forthcoming. With three declarations o f independence in hand the first, from Chiapas; the second, from kingdom capital, Guatemala City, and the third, from a provincial capitalthe cabildos o f the secondary towns of both Honduras and Nicaragua considered their options and reached their independent conclusions, as had the rest of the isthmus. Only with so many options to consider, the possibilities for further fracturing o f authority increased significantly. In Honduras, Tegucigalpas city council opted to remain united with Guatemala City and to reject any political association with Comayagua, while the two port towns o f Omoa and Trujillo, the principal ports for the Guatemala City elite, joined breakaway Comayagua. In Nicaragua, Granada and Masaya followed the same path as Tegucigalpa, voting for absolute independence from Spain and continued union with Guatemala. These political rebuffs o f provincial capitals were the first step toward civil war, as the provincial capitals determined that they had the right to change their recalcitrant districts decisions by force. They were also the first signals that secondary towns might prefer to retain their direct relationship with the distant kingdom capital o f Guatemala City rather than participate in the elevation of their district capitals (icabeceras) to greater authority. Further south, Costa Rica, which as a gobiem o had belonged to the Nicaraguan intendancy, took a different route.30 San Salvador, Comayagua and Leon had weighed
29 Acta de la Diputacion Provincial de Leon, 28 September 1821. Full text is in Melendez, ed., Textos
F undam entales., p. 274.
30 For a contemporary description of independence, see Alejandro Marure, B osquejo H isto rico de las R evoluciones d e C entroam erica, desde 1811 hasta 1834 (Guatemala: Editorial del Ministerio de Educacion Publica, 1960), Chapter 2.
300
the Guatemalan and Chiapas decisions; the four principal towns o f Costa Rica addressed the split simmering between Guatemala and Leon. Provincial capital Cartagos cabildo abierto supported the path o f least resistance: maintaining unity with Nicaragua. Mayor Santiago Bonilla had suggested that both should be supported, as long as both continue united in government, but a majority moved to follow Leon, its traditional regional authority, agreed to annexation to Mexico. To ensure that the rest o f the province followed suit, Cartagos municipality took a unique path and assigned the governor to preside over discussions in the other three municipalities.31 Not only did this municipal consultation lead to an immediate provincial unity. In a negotiated agreement unique to Central America, on December I, Costa Rica established its own junta gubernativa superior under a joint pact, the Pacto de la Concordia. This junta, made up o f seven popularly-elected members and a president whose term o f office was to be 3 months, rotated its seat among each o f the four Costa Rican cabeceras San Jose, Cartago, Heredia and Alajuelaeach year.32 This preference for negotiation and willingness to share power was a hallmark that would help keep this one district on the sidelines o f the civil wars that would engulf its northern neighbors for the next twenty years.
3 1 Acta de los Ayuntamientos proclamando la independencia del gobierno espanol, Cartago, 29 October 1821, in Melendez, ed., Textos Fundamentales, pp. 282-283. Cartagos municipal act o f independence declared the province's adhesion to the Mexican empire, acceptance o f Leon's terms o f independence, and the continuation o f all officials in their posts until further notice. The meeting then solicited the governor to personally attend the meetings o f the ayuntamientos o f the rest o f the places, cities, towns of this Province, to preside the acts, which in the present case should be celebrated, and to communicate their results to this ayuntamiento." 32 Rodriguez, The Cadiz Experiment, p. 160.
301
With the rest o f the provinces rejecting Guatemalas lead, the fracturing so evident in the rest of Central America sent its tremors through the most populous district. The cabecera o f the Guatemalan highlands, the town o f Quezaltenango also declared its separation from the kingdom capital and its separate annexation to Mexico. An offer of the JPC to the Quezaltenango elite to authorize a diputacion provincial for the highlands arrived two days too late. For the next six months, Guatemala would dispute Quezaltenangos pretensions to annex various highland districts in order to form a territory large enough to merit its own district in the new Mexican empire. An actual invasion was forestalled by the arrival o f Mexican brigadier Vicente Filisola with a policy designed to reconcile the two sides.33 Thus, by late November 1821, it was clear that each municipality considered itself empowered to make political alliances in the name o f its community with whichever local or distant capital appealed the most. Whether the fundamental consideration was fear o f Spain, or o f a closer authority with designs on the authority, trade, resources or strategic location o f a particular town, the common response o f each and every town that declared independence was to do so in terms that seemed most propitious for protection from retaliation. Equally clear was that once the pact that united each town and province to Spain was declared ended, the choice about whether to act alone, as one town council, or in unison, through a junta representing several or many town councils, was felt to be within the purview of each community. For all o f
33 Taracena, Invencion Criolla, pp. 88-93.
302
the juntas , governors and other institutions operating in the fall o f 1821, independence was a municipal affair. After Independence: The Mexican Dilemma The municipal reaction to the news o f independence was merely the first indication that decision-making would take place at the local level as Central Americans soon faced the next stage in the independence process. In September and October, the key decision seemed to be whether to continue in independence as a political unit that would be the successor state to the Kingdom o f Guatemala, with Guatemala City as its capital. By November, direct pressure from Iturbide changed the equation. The question became not would Central America become or remain independent from Spain, but would the former Kingdom o f Guatemala accept the invitation o f Iturbide to join the Mexican empire, and if so, how? In Guatemala City, Gabino Gainza received a letter from the Mexican Emperor indicating that he was prepared to use force to ensure the union o f Guatemala to Mexico and assumed that the region could not afford to wait for the March 1822 constituent assembly to decide on the districts fate. Certainly, the numerous variations o f the declarations o f independence from Spain indicated that waiting was unlikely to produce the unanimity desired, and, in particular, a unanimity that restored the status quo o f Guatemala as center o f a united territory. So, after consulting with the junta provisional consultiva, the je fe politico o f Guatemala determined on a unique course that in many ways was true to the initial program. Since they felt there was no time for each town to participate in local and then provincial indirect elections o f deputies, the Guatemala
303
authorities opted on November 28 to request each constituted ayuntamiento constitutional to hold a cabildo abierto to hear the feeling o f the pueblos on whether or not it favored union with Mexico.34 Notably, the referendum included all of the ayuntamientos constitucionales, and not simply the two-dozen colonial ciudadesy villas. This referendum marked the first case o f Central Americas leadership extending the inclusive principles o f Cadiz to the realities o f post-independence decision-making. It also codified that which had been happening in fact: each town, upon receipt of multiple declarations o f independence from a variety of towns and provinces, was making its own conditional declaration, indicating a preference not only for independence from Spain but also for a local cabecera that seemed to provide maximum advantage. In the meantime, elections o f deputies to the national constitutent assembly were to continue. Guatemalan historian Alejandro Marure, a contemporary o f these events, argued in his history o f the period that this referendum was an illegal idea originating with the Marquis of Aycinena, who favored union with Mexico.35 Certainly, the decision to consult each city subverted the constitutional procedure o f having deputies debate the political future o f Central America that had been suggested by Guatemala Citys authorities at independence. However, rejected by Leon, Chiapas and Costa Rica, the congress seemed unlikely to occur. Furthermore, the referendum also recognized the
34 Monterey, H istoria d e E l Salvador, p. 71. On November 30, 1821, Gainza, informed by Iturbide of Mexicos plan to annex Central America, agreed with the JPC to convoke an open meeting (cabildo a b ierto ) o f the a yuntam ientos o f Central America, to hear their opinion on whether or not to join Mexico. The circular directed to the councils of the isthmus was drafted by Jose Cecilio del Valle. 35 Marure, B osquejo H istorico, pp. 80-81.
304
political reality that had been established by municipal independence: it was not only provincial capitals that would have a say in the political future o f the region, but each community large and active enough to have established ayuntamientos constitucionales. Certainly, the jurists of the Guatemalan DP, after lengthy discussions, had opined in November that the DP did not possess the authority to make the decision for the kingdom. It would not be the people (el pueblo), but the pueblos in which they lived and voted, that would determine the political fate o f Central America. With the old pact with Spain broken, a new pact o f union between Mexico and Guatemala would also find its basis in the municipality and would be between Iturbide and our ayuntamientos.36 Despite the possible legal flaws expressed by Marure and other contemporaries, the referendum was at least a qualified success that gave each city and town a chance to register official acceptance or rejection o f Mexico, and an absolute majority responded. O f the 244 town councils believed operating in Central America in the fall of 1821, 115 towns voted to join Mexico, 32 expressed their preference for independence from Guatemala, 23 left the decision to a future congress. Only 77 cabildos did not participate at all.37 38 That more than half o f the respondents but less than half of the eligible councils opted for union with Mexico suggested a poor start for an alliance that would require,
36 Actas de la Diputacion Provisional (1821), 1971, p. 365. 37 Wortman, G overnm ent and So ciety, p. 230. Wortman cites as his source for these figures a letter written from Aycinena to Iturbide, dated 3 January 1822. The letter can be found in Rafael H. Valle, ed. La anexion de C entro Am erica a M exico (Mexico: Secretaria dc Relaciones Exteriores, 1924-1949), Volume 3, p. 112. 38 For an outline o f Iturbides correspondence, see Monterey, H istoria d e E l Salvador , pp. 60-79. Filisola. Mexico's enforcer of the decision, arrived in Chiapas in late February 1822 and issued a
305
much as the recently-severed relationship with Spain had required by the early 1800s, voluntary participation and loyalty rather than forced adhesion. However, the calculus in the capital differed significantly. Aycinena concluded, in fact, that since Leon, Comayagua and Ciudad Real had already joined the Empire, in a certain fashion, one could say that Guatemala has wholly united [uniformado ] with Mexico. The only outstanding problem, he added, was that now it appears that these other Provinces are going there [to Mexico] with their puerile grievances, with each wishing to erect itself into a capital.39 Unfortunately, such puerile grievances would make o f the following year a period o f civil war and disharmony in which Guatemala City, the provincial capitals and the small municipalidades all contributed to instability. Even if some significant cities that had initially rejected Mexican union, like Guatemala City and Tegucigalpa, acknowledged the impossibility o f holding out when Mexico insisted on annexation by the summer o f 1822, the precedent of each city acting on its own behalf had already been set, seemed difficult and in fact became impossible to overcome in the short term.40 A more concrete outcome o f the referendum was the surfacing o f opposing political tendencies in the province o f El Salvador that divided this district into combative cabildos in the same way that the initial declaration o f independence had split Leon and Comayagua. Staunch republican strongholds San Salvador and San
directive to the provinces o f Leon, Solola, Totonicapan, Comayagua, Chiquimula, Mazatenango and San Salvador informing o f his arrival to protect the annexation. 39 Mariano de Aycinena to Agustin Iturbide, 18 December 1821, in Lujan Munoz, La Independencia y la anexion, p. 174
306
Vicente were among the 23 towns that, in a cabildo abierto , held out for the National Congress, promised in September, as the only means to resolve the question o f Central Americas political future. Previously willing to follow Guatemalas lead, this perceived capitulation to Mexican threats and interests caused San Salvador to align with Comayagua and Nicaragua, rejecting the authority of the Captain General to discard the second article o f the Guatemalan act o f independence that had called for such a congress.41 However, this province also boasted converts to the Empire who, in essence followed Tegucigalpa and Granada in choosing Guatemala City over their own capitals. Mariano Aycinena reported that the city o f San Miguel and villa o f Santa Ana, and the districts o f Sonsonate, which would join San Salvador in 1825, had held their cabildos abiertos and had also chosen Mexico. An unfortunate result o f the vote was the division o f the province o f El Salvador in the same way that the declaration o f independence had revealed exploitable splits in Nicaragua, Guatemala and Honduras. One o f the most strongly held tenets o f historians is that alienation from Guatemala City was the principal cause o f the disunion that fragmented Central America, beginning in the fall o f 1821.42 Yet if we consider the amount o f attention that has been focused on anti-Guatemala City sentiment, it is interesting to note that only about 15% o f city councils participating in the referendum actively and specifically
40 Tegucigalpa wrote to Mexican commander Vicente Filisola on 24 July 1824 to intimate its oath o f loyalty to the Mexican Empire. ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 165, No 373, 7 Aug. 1822, Filisola a; Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. 41 Monterey, Historia de El Salvador, pp. 71. 74. The Ayuntamiento of San Salvador held its cabildo abierto, presided by the governor, intendant Jose Matias Delgado, on 18 December. On December 25th, the Salvadoran Junta de Gobiemo initiated its appeal to the diputaciones o f Comayagua and Leon to seek solidarity in resistance to Guatemala and Mexico
307
sought separation from their long-time capital. Furthermore, as we have seen above, for each provincial capital that, in the end, opted for alliance with Mexico over continued government from GuatemalaSan Salvador, Comayagua, Leon de Nicaraguathere was at least one competing city within the same province San Miguel and Santa Ana, Tegucigalpa, Granadathat used ties with Guatemala to defend from that provincial capitals encroachments. Even if we consider all 77 non-respondents as expressing a default option rejecting Guatemala, they still amount to less than half o f all towns, and fewer than those which were interested in joining Mexico. Thus, in following the further disintegration of Central America into a collection o f polities at the level o f sovereign states of every village, in early 1822 and through June 1823, it behooves us not to simplify the chaos in terms o f a capital-versus-provinces model so prevalent in previous histories, but to examine the internal workings o f the provinces that fragmented within the already fragmenting former Kingdom o f Guatemala. City and State The case of Honduras, split by political antipathy between Tegucigalpa and Comayagua, when examined in detail, shows how the complex relationship between colonial district capitals (cabeceras) and their dependent towns (anexos ) determined the political and territorial organization that would follow separation from Mexico in 1823. In the Honduran case, as with the schisms in El Salvador and Nicaragua, outside intervention and alliances proved decisive both in deepening and in resolving the conflict.
42 See for example Wortman, Government and Society; Mario Rodriguez, The Cadiz Experiment; Thomas
308
Comayaguas overt dissatisfaction with Guatemala began in November 1820, when the restoration o f the Spanish constitutional monarchy encouraged a decision by intendant Jose Tinoco to establish a provincial deputation for the two districts of Comayagua and Tegucigalpa. The move met with opposition in the colonial capital, since Tinocos initiatives included choosing Havana rather than Guatemala City as the destination for his governments reports. Comayaguas ayuntamiento and leading families supported, and likely instigated, this move. In the official request to the Cortes to approve the new DP, the council emphasized long-standing grievances with the colonial capital. Now is the time, they wTote, for this ayuntamiento to reveal the pitiful picture o f miseries to which we have been reduced by the merchants o f cattle and silver in Guatemala.43 The grievances o f the Comayagua city council were serious: failure of the capital to provide protection from the British and unconquered Caribbean peoples living on the North Coast, to reinvigorate abandoned mines, and undercutting o f Honduran cattle production through programs designed, instead, to breed cattle closer to Guatemala City. The council also believed that taxes collected in Honduras funded government and programs in Guatemala City, for which they perceived no immediate benefits. The breakaway diputacion provincial o f Honduras wrote that the colonial administration in the capital ran and runs all o f its offices with the lucrative taxes from
Kames, The Failure o f Union, Central America (1824-1960) (Chapel Hill: U. o f N. Carolina Press, 1961). 43 Ayuntamiento de Comayagua, 1820. Cited in Wortman, Government and Society, p. 225.
309
the provinces o f Honduras.44 By mid-1820, the Cortes in Spain had approved the new DP but the breach with Guatemala had deepened in the process. Tegucigalpas grievances against Comayagua, presented repeatedly to the Spanish government, sounded suspiciously like those Comayagua felt towards Guatemala. Not only had Tegucigalpas flourishing mines and cattle industries suffered since integration into Comayagua in 1791, the villa claimed, but Comayagua also illegally dipped into the funds (propios) o f the villa and its partidos to finance its own projects.45 If Comayaguas prosperity suffered from dealing with Guatemalan merchants o f cattle and silver, Tegucigalpas prospered, for these were the products she had to trade. Having achieved political independence from Comayagua in 1812, Tegucigalpa resented the 1820 Comayagua diputacion provincial's efforts to convince the Spanish Crown to reverse this decision by default, through integration o f the alcaldia mayor into the district o f the DP.46 After independence, it was not prepared to respond favorably to Comayaguas orders to preparations for election to Guatemalas imaginary congress since the province o f Honduras had joined the Mexican Empire on September 28.47
44 Wortman, G overnm ent a n d S o ciety, p. 225. The original letters can be found in AGCA B 1.10 Legajo 79, Expediente 2301, flf. 12-13; A l.l Legajo 6930, Expediente 57114. 45 See Chapter 2 and also Marvin Barahona, La A lcaldia m a yo r d e Tegucigalpa b a jo e l regim en d e intendencias (1 788-1812) (Tegucigalpa: Instituto Hondureno de Antropologia e Historia, 1996). For original documents relating Tegucigalpas specific fiscal and political grievances against its incorporation into the Intendancy o f Comayagua/Honduras, see also A G I623, Letter of Santiago Martinez Rincon, representative o f Tegucigalpa in Madrid, 1804. 46 Carta del gobemador Intendente de Comayagua Coronel Don Jose Gregorio Tinoco de Contreras Informando Al Rey sobre Su provincia, 28 August 1820. AGI 531. Letter reprinted in Mario Felipe Martinez Castillo, A puntam ientos p a ra una historia colonial d e Tegucigalpa y s u A lcaldia M a y o r (Tegucigalpa: Editorial Universitaria, 1982), pp. 168-170. 47 ANH (Tegucigalpa), Fondo DP, Caja 164, No 300, 9 December 1821, Juan Lindo, Comayagua, al Ayuntamiento de la Villa de Tegucigalpa.
310
Both district capitals sought to make the most o f their resourcesmining in Tegucigalpas case, government and location closer to the port towns through which trade was conducted for Comayaguato increase their political autonomy and control o f land, labor and trade. Unfortunately, the local goals were not compatible with a united province. At independence, then, the tensions culminated. Comayagua not only decided to break with Guatemala but to inform Tegucigalpa that it, too, should no longer obey the authorities in the capital, in civil, military, ecclesiastic or fiscal matters.48 Tegucigalpa refused, preferring to ally with the Guatemala JPS, which had supported its long, but ultimately successful, bureaucratic struggle to reestablish the alcaldia mayor o f Tegucigalpa (1800-1817). In no way, nor under any aspect, insisted Tegucigalpas city fathers in their declaration o f independence, do [we] wish to belong to the Government of Comayagua.49 Tensions escalated into military confrontation because independence provided the first chance for each town to forge alliances outside o f the province without fear o f a centralized government response. Responding to rumors that Comayagua planned to invade it to force recognition as the capital, by November 21, Tegucigalpa petitioned for help from San Miguel and San Salvador. Such a plea would have been impossible during official Spanish rule, when the two neighboring cities would have had to clear
48 Francisco J. Monterey, H istoria de E l Salvador: A notaciones C ronologicas 1810-1842, tomo I (San Salvador: Editorial Universitaria, 1996), p. 67. According to Monterey, Tegucigalpa received Comayagua's act o f independence and instructions on 30 September 1821. After Jose Tinoco stepped down as governor o f Honduras on 21 November, the replacement, Honduran native and lawyer Juan Fernandez Lindo immediately wrote to Tegucigalpa, informing that Comayagua had already sworn independence and its intent to join Mexico. 49 Luis Pedro Taracena Arriola, Ilusion Minera, p. 319. He, in turn, cites the article, Actas de Independencia,in the R evista d el Archivo y Biblioteca N acional, T IV , Nos. 15-16 (1908), pp. 617-622.
311
their responses through Spanish officials in their own province as well as in Guatemala City.50 This Salvadoran help arrived in the form o f two groups o f militia counting over 400 men from San Salvador by December 18, who reinforced Guatemalan forces who occupied Santa Rosa and Omoa, to oppose Comayagua.5 1 Comayagua, having cut its ties to Guatemala, sought support from distant Mexico, but also built an alliance with the capital o f Nicaragua, Leon, which found itself in a similar situation. Leons elite also resented the political interference and economic drain represented by Guatemala City, and also faced a recalcitrant junior city, Granada, which refused to participate fully in Leons version o f independence. Leon did not merely send troops to help Comayagua. Its diputacion provincial also wrote to the besieged city, informing that it now undertook to serve as mediator, not just in the area o f Nicaragua, but to influence the fate o f the former kingdom.52 Trans-provincial meddling was a trap that each capital sprang, hoping to prove that it could replace Guatemala City as a legitimate regional authority. Such meddling generally provoked resentment, ridicule or disinterest, and did not simplify a return to normal relations based on equal footing within a redistricted territory once the interregnum drew to a close. Intra-provincial rivalries proved fertile ground on which to experiment with inter-provincial alliances and battles, an example that would prove disastrous in each attempt to build a post-independence Central American government.
50 ANH (Tegucigalpa), Fondo Diputacion Provincial (DP), Caja 160, No. 4 (B3.1.0). 21 November 1821, Letter o f Jose Tinoco, governor o f Honduras, to the Muy Ilustre y Leal Ayuntamiento de San Miguel y Comandante de Armas. Tinoco accused the city fathers o f Tegucigalpa o f being tricked and oppressed by Francisco Aguirre and his brother, Jose Rojas, and Dionicio Herrera. 5 1 Monterey, Historia de El Salvador , p. 71.
312
The nature o f the alliances in this instance was demonstrably temporary and opportunistic, rather than reflective o f underlying ideological or political commitments. Tegucigalpa believed that San Salvador and Guatemala, which had resisted integration into Mexico would be sympathetic; Comayagua gambled that Leon, also declared independent o f Guatemala and allied to Mexico, would be supportive. By the end o f December, Tegucigalpa found that its alliance with Guatemala had cost it its Salvadoran ally, which recalled its troops. Changing partners, San Salvador sought to shore up an alliance with its neighbors to hold off Guatemalan and Mexican control. It lanced an appeal to Comayagua and Leon to create a union to make up a respectable state that would be able to put an end to the disastrous civil wars brewing in Tegucigalpa and Granada, and to present a respectable force to repel the attacks o f despotism, while still having resources left to attend to reinvigorating the economy.53 Captain General Gainza, in return, could rely on Tegucigalpa not to provoke its former capital. He wrote again in early April to express his support for the towns decision not to take up the request of its pueblo, San Antonio, to create a competing diputacion provincial.54 For Tegucigalpas loyalty to Guatemala, the villa learned in January 1822 that the Gainza had promoted it to city, and had designated its patriotic ayuntamiento. The city immediately published this mark o f respect in the town proper
52 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 165, No. 354, ND. In my notes, I mention that Tegucigalpa answered but do not have the text o f the answer. 53 Monterey, Historia de El Salvador..., p. 72. 54 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 165, no 352, 7 April 1822, Gabino Gainza a; Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa.
313
and circulated it to the other towns addicted to it as capital.55 When Guatemala had to inform Tegucigalpa that it had accepted union with Mexico, it sweetened the pill by also informing the city council that at the same time that Guatemala had also declared Tegucigalpa fully independent from Comayagua.56 Tegucigalpa was thus overjoyed in 1823 to participate in the election o f representatives to a National Constituent Assembly (ANC) for a federation o f Central American states, demonstrating the proof o f its joy with an immediate oath o f fidelity to the new congress in July 1823.57 Nor was such honorific reward limited to the cabecera. In late February 1822, the Tegucigalpa ayuntamiento was pleased to inform alderman Jose Tomas Funes and priest Tomas Jalon o f Choluteca o f Gainzas report that they were worthy o f praise for their zeal, with the city adding that [they] will be eternally recognized in the grateful hearts o f the residents o f this city for their role in opposing Comayagua.58 For such favors, Gainza could count on Tegucigalpa to circulate his message that San Salvadors decision to secede from Guatemala was based on false claims that Guatemala had no faculty to make the decision that annexed Central America to Mexico. Gainzas proclamation (banda ), duly circulated, stated that the resolution
55 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 162, No. 128, Jose Cabanas to Municipalidad de Tegucigalpa, 11 January 1812. Juticalpa, on January 12, congratulated its cavecera and reiterated its willingness to put its few arms at Tegucigalpas disposition alongside its enthusiastic valiants. ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 165, No. 316. 56 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 165, No 322, Gabino Gainza to Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa, 22 January 1822. Gainza praised Tegucigalpas heroic resistance to Comayaguas pretentions and incursions, noted that Guatemala had made its cause one with that o f Tegucigalpa, and that in the moments o f declaring its union with Mexico, in accord with the general will, agreed also that T egucigalpa belongs in now way to comayagua, not remaining politically, militarily or fiscally dependent. Past events, however sad, have strengthened (estrechados) this city with that, and have prepared for always brotherhood o f Guatemaltecos and Tegucigalpenses. 57 ANH, Fondo DP, caja 162, No. 149 (b4.10). Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa al Jefe Politico, 22 July 1823. The je fe politico is Herrera.
314
taken in the colonial capital did not resolve the question, but simply respected the majority vote in favor o f union to that empire that the pueblos in their open councils have spoken (< espuesto). Gainza asked Tegucigalpa to circulate his official position in the pueblos to avoid having the suggestions and intrigues o f rabblerousers (perturbatos) confuse simple citizens. 59 Gainza then followed up with the prize that would assure him o f Tegucigalpas loyalty: notification that he had separated that district from the political and military control o f Comayagua.60 In addition to seeking outside alliances, each regional capital also had to consider how best to improve its position within the province. Comayagua attempted to convince the towns in Tegucigalpas jurisdiction to switch provincial allegiance and to accept the Comayagua government and junta, and met with limited success as Tegucigalpa moved to retain their loyalty. The Tegucigalpa ayuntamiento constitucional wrote to the villages within the boundaries o f its alcaldia mayor on 5 November asking them to inform if they had sworn independence along the lines o f Guatemala and Tegucigalpa, or o f Comayagua.61 It also sought to entice districts within Comayaguas district to change allegiance.
58 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 168, No 538, 20 February 1822, Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa al Regidor del Ayuntamiento de Choluteca, Jose Tomas Funes. 59 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 165, no 323, 23 January 1822, Gabino Gainza al Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. 60 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 165, no 332, 18 February 1822, Danli Ayuntamiento to Tegucigalpa Ayuntamiento, acknowledging receipt o f this information. Danlis ayuntamiento was made up of: Anotnio Jose Lazo de la Vega, Jose Firrafino Vicente Firrafino, Simon Diaz, Miguel Anonio Rojas, Angel Maria Medina and Ramon Arriaga, secretary. The town council o f Texiguat also received this information. Caja 165, No 338, 25 February 1822. Texiguats town council was: Miguel Peres, Benito Medina, Luis Alvarez, Vicente Funes de Espinal, and interim secretary Vicente Rodriguez. 6 1 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 162, No 160.
315
From the outset, most o f the ayuntamientos o f Tegucigalpas alcaldia mayor reiterated their loyalty and willingness to send arms to defend against the importunate Comayagua if required. The towns of Aguanqueterique, San Juan, San Antonio Aramezina, Yuscaran, Goascaran, Langue, Aluvaren, Reytoca, and others along their mail circuit (cordillera) had already organized to defend the province.62 Choluteca, the only other well-established Spanish villa, stated its loyalty as well.63 A year later, the division o f the province into two competing series o f towns was made clearer, when Comayagua listed the partidos that recognized it as capital: Nacaome, Yoro, La Trinidad, Olanchito, Cedros, Siguatepeque, Taulabe, Otoro, Yojoa, Cerquin, Gualcha, Yntibuca, and Aguanqueterique. From the list, it is clear that after its initial sowing o f discord in the Tegucigalpa district, Comayagua was able to recruit only one further town, Aguanqueterique, to its side in the next year.64 During the course o f the fall, the key port towns and garrisons o f Omoa and Truxillo had also changed sides, leaving Comayagua land-locked.65
62 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 160, No. 4 (B3.1.0). 21 November 1821, Letter of Jose Tinoco, governor of Honduras, to the Muy Ilustre y Leal Ayuntamiento de San Miguel y Comandante de Armas. Tinoco accused the city fathers of Tegucigalpa of being tricked and oppressed by Francisco Aguirre and his brother, Jose Rojas, and Dionicio Herrera. Caja 16S, No 402, Ayuntamiento del Mineral de Yuscaran al de Tegucigalpa, 2 December 1821. Yuscaran recognized Tegucigalpa as its cabecera. 63 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 164, No 276, 5 November 1821, Ayuntamiento de Choluteca al Ayuntamiento Patriotico de Tegucigalpa. The Choluteca council was made up o f Zenon Zuniga, Jose Francisco Larios, Jose Tomas Funes, Jose Antonio Arsenal, Baleriano Jolla, and Juan Jose Pinel, secretary. 64 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 260, No. 10, 9 December 1822, Joaquin Estrada, Sec., Comayagua. Lista de los partidos que se hallavan reconociendo a esta capital y a su gobnierno a tiempo de las elns. Echas de diputados a Cortes del Congreso mexicano en el mes de marzo de 1822. Aguanqueterique had informed Tegucigalpa o f its decision in late 1821, apparently because Comayagua had decided to join the Mexcian Empire. The council defended its decision by citing articles 325 and 326 o f the Spanish Constitution that supported a DP for each province. Fondo DP, Caja 164, No 296, Ayuntamiento de Aguanqueterique al de Tegucigalpa, 5 December 1821. 65 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 160, Mariano Urmeneta, Alcalde de Tegucigalpa, cordillera, 5 November 1821.
316
The distinctions o f loyalty were not so clear in some cases, however. Some town councils, like that o f Danli, apparently pledged loyalty to Comayagua while continuing to claim a connection with Tegucigalpa, in order to ensure a positive local outcome, regardless o f which town gained ascendancy.66 Others, like Nacaome, chose to remain neutral by publishing the official notices o f both would-be capitals.67 In Olancho, cabecera Juticalpa at first accepted its traditional position in the jurisdiction o f Comayagua and refused overtures o f Tegucigalpa on the grounds that they were impractical. Tom between demands from both provincial powerhouses, the first-ever Juticalpa town council wished on November 1 for the pueblos to unite their will and submit to one government, [in order to] put an end to the evils that present themselves... [Tegucigalpas] cause is not the same as ours because [your] government has been independent o f Comayagua, but this partido never has been.68 However, on the same date, impelled by the attendance o f numerous residents at a town council meeting, Juticalpas council opted to obey constituted authorities...[obeying] as Captain General and [jefe] superior, Gabino Gainza [and] obeying also the Suprema Diputacion Provincial o f Comayagua, once it includes a legitimate representative o f this partido , as well as the Intendant Don Jose Tinoco, insofar as his [acts] do not oppose those o f the Capital o f the Kingdom.69 In other words, the municipales drafted a statement that, if correctly quoted, allowed them to protest loyalty to either capital. A subsequent attempt by Comayagua to collect
66 See, for example, AGCA letters. 67 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 164, no 283, 21 November 1821, Silvestre Tome, Nacaome to Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. 68 Ayuntamiento de Juticalpa al de Tegucigalpa, 1 November 1821. Cited in Jose A Sarmiento, Historia de Olancho, p. 82. The Juticalpa letter answered one o f 2 October 1821 from Tegucigalpa, inviting the town to resist the new order o f things that Comayagua was trying to impose.Sarmiento found numerous municipal documents from this period in Juticalpa's municipal archive. 69 Sarmiento, Historia de Olancho. p. 85.
317
a new head tax led to a change o f allegiance. Jose Manuel Rodesno, mayor and acting ju ez politico o f Juticalpa, had to inform Tinoco in Comayagua that the pueblo had informed him that they would rather lose their heads than pay the new tax, unless the rest o f the nation paid as w ell.70 They also requested the return o f the previous governor, Joaquin Tome, o f the same family that had worked with the Tegucigalpa Zelayas since the previous century. Even as late as January 1822, when Juticalpas town council reiterated its addiction to Tegucigalpa, this profession o f loyalty followed a December 31 note to governor Juan Lindo in Comayagua excusing earlier support for Tegucigalpa as a temporary response to the apasionados active in Comayagua.71 Caught between two cabeceras and unsure o f the outcome, prize towns like Danli and Juticalpa could not afford to remain neutral, nor, however, could they entirely antagonize either possible victor in the conflict. Thus, the correspondence o f such towns often reflected the dilemma o f the awkward position o f annexes (anexos). Why not simply cut their losses and secede from each cabecera as the two fought for supremacy? Clarification o f orders as well as administration o f justice were services Tegucigalpa could still offer its anexos. When a town had doubts about the rituals or ceremonies to be used in a swearing in o f the first new ayuntamiento after
70 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 160, No 2, Jose Manuel Rodezno to Tte Captain General and Jefe Superior Politico Jose Tinoco, Juticalpa, 19 November 1821; Jose Maria Zelaya to Same, Juticalpa, 21 November 1821. Zelaya sought the advice o f the town council, military commander, and ju ez politico. 71 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 168, no 540, 31 December 1821, Ayuntamiento de Juticalpa al GPS de Comayagua Juan Lindo. The council was Jose Manuel Rodezno, Francisco Garay, Bacilio Gomes, Damian Mendoza, Jose Maria Barahona, Baltasar Cubas, Mariano Gonzales, Felix Martines, and Jose Leon Maz, secretary. The letter, while it did distance itself to a certain extent from Tegucigalpa, nonetheless requested that Lindo stop sending them providencias, or accords, from Comayagua.
318
independence, it wrote to the jefe politico or ayuntamiento in Tegucigalpa.72 When in doubt about requirements for militia, towns such as Texiguat consulted the Tegucigalpa ayuntamiento to seek permission to form urban troops or for clarification.73 When criminal cases required the intervention of outside authorities, from tracking down a fugitive to interpreting a section o f the law, the small, rural, mining and Indian villages counted on their capital. When actual government seemed insufficientas when the mayors o f San Antonio complained that they could not administer justice well as their jurisdiction was divided in two by a hill, leaving those on the far side o f the city hall and church undisciplined and inclined to commit crimes mayors sought decisions in the cabecera?4 When questions about taxes arose or generated local conflict, the cabecera's advice was sought.75 When in need o f news from superior officials, in Guatemala City or another recognized capital, the smaller towns counted on their cabecera to circulate this information in the cordillera circuit as well. The town council of Goascoran, in February 1822, reminded Teguicgalpa that as an addict o f its provincial capital, it need for its well-being and prosperity... individual notices o f the system o f this city [Tegucigalpa].. .for we wish to have the joy to know them for our
72 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 162, No 120, 29 December 1821, Municipalidad de Santa Ana al Jefe Politico de Tegucigalpa. Regarding the 1821 elections, the town said the lieutenant alcalde mayor had officiated, as had been done in Ojojona. 73 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 161, No 71, Alcalde de Texiguat, Benito Medina, to Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa, 26 October 1821. 74 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 162, No 147, 11 (...) 1822. Mayors Tiburcio Galo, Jose Maria Reyes and Antonio Mayrene wrote to the Tegucigalpa JP insisting that he would do as was convenient. 75 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 162, No 122, 31 December 1821. Tax farmers (asentistas) Pedro Barahona and Hermenegildo Valdes asked not to pay their city and tavern taxes. Acting governor Jose Manuel Rodesno forwarded the case to the jefe politico of Tegucigalpa
319
own government.76 Tegucigalpa JP Dionicio Herrera made sure that important news, such as Gafnzas January 1822 call for elections for deputies to the Mexican Congress o f 1822-1823, circulated to all the ayuntamientos in this territory {comprehension)." 77 The courts o f the Tegucigalpa municipality and the jefe politico o f the district were quite full in the 1821-1823 period, with both operating to resolve everything from small financial cases to accusations o f treason and disloyalty. Independence and civil war did not in any way diminish the political connections between cabecera and anexo, but instead strengthened their ties as villages with new councils, like Texiguat and San Antonio participated in the circuit. Furthermore, many anexos shared more than political ties with their cabeceras. Tegucigalpa had long-standing family and economic ties with many o f the towns in the former alcaldia mayor. The Tome family o f Danli had long served the Zelaya family o f Tegucigalpa as majordomos, or managers, o f the familys haciendas there. 78 The Medina family had branches in Danli and Tegucigalpa.79 The Valle family of
76 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 163, No 178, 13 February 1822, Ayuntamiento de Goascaran al de Tegucigalpa. Mayors Marcelo Ferrofino and Juan de Dios Calisto signed the letter. 7/ ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 162, No 132 and 136, 5 and 20 February 1822, Dionisio Herrera, Jefe Politico, Tegucigalpa to Clergy, Parishes and Districts (Partidos), on elections o f deputies to Mexican Cortes o f 1822-1823. As well as setting election dates, Herrera explained that elections would use the rules o f the Spanish Constitution. The second cordillera went to towns that seem not to have corresponded with Tegucigalpa in this period, possibly because they were so close or small that they formed no councils o f their own. Herrer's correspondence suggests that they remained with the capital, since they were in the immediate jurisdiction. Tamara, Rio Hondo and Talanga signed off on this cordillera; Suyapa, Jacaleapa, Villanueva, Llaguacina, Mateo, Tamara, Rio Abajo, Rio Hondo, Talanga did not ,8 ANH, Fondo Colonial, 1776: Libro del Escribano Rivera, p. 169; ANH, Fondo Colonial, Caja 115, NO. 3716, Padron de Espaholes de Tegucigalpa, 1815; Vicente Toledo y Vivero and Capt, Joseph Celaya, Nomina de los Vecinos Principales del Real de Minas de Tegucigalpa en 1762, R evisa d e l A r c h iv o y B iblioteca N a cio n a l d e H onduras 25:1/2 (1946), pp. :6-10; Leticia Oyuela, Fe, riq u eza y p o der. A ntologia critica d e docum entos p a ra la historia d e H onduras (Tegucigalpa: Editorial Guaymuras, 1992), Testamento de Pedro Martir de Zelaya. 79 See note 60.
320
Choluteca and Tegucigalpa was intermarried with the Lozanos o f Yuscaran. The Morazan family had branches in both Tegucigalpa and Yuscaran as well, and two o f their number sat on the Yuscaran town council in 1821.80 The Boijas family often spent time near their mines in San Antonio.81 Equally important, key members o f the Tegucigalpa elite went into business with miners in the district, presumably supplying tools, sulfur, capital and a market for the work. Joint denuncias or claims for new and abandoned mines, were a regular phenomenon well into the mid-1820s, with notices such as Santiago Bueso Sotomayors joint claim with Pedro Pablo Chaves, a miner native to Aguanqueterique, to a virgin silver mine near Curaren, being registered dozens o f times a year.82 For an anexo to sever ties with its cabecera would mean withdrawal from long-standing commercial tiesTegucigalpa had the stores in which miners shopped and procured supplies; the mining towns and cattle-producing towns of the district were the lifes blood o f Tegucigalpas greater economy. It also meant severing family connections that provided banking and matchmaking services to its members, as well as entree into politics and social life.
80 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 164, No 402, 2 December 1821, Ayuntamiento de Yuscaran al de Tegucigalpa; and Caja 171, No SO, 1826, Denuncias de Minas; index, Felipe Valle was married to Macedonia Lozano, o f Yuscaran. Juan Bautista Morazan, was a merchant and resident of Yuscaran in 1782 (Garay, 8), and likely the father o f Bemabe and Juan Nepomuceno Morazan, m unicipales there in 1821. Three other members o f the council were from the Paz family, which also had its roots in Tegucigalpa and mining. ZELAYA GARAY, THIS IS THE SPACE FOR THE WHOLE THESIS TITLE< AND YEAER< AND Universidad de Honduras, p. 8; ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 164, No 402; Mario Felipe Martinez Castillo, A p u n ta m ien to s p a ra una historia colonial de Tegucigalpa y su alcaldia m a y o r (Tegucigalpa: Editorial Universitaria, 1982), p. 133. 8 1 ANH, Fondo Colonial, Caja 115, Padron de 1815. Juaquin Boijas family was not in the city, but at the mine. In the same year, Miguel Boijas family was living at their mine in Yuscaran. 8 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 176. This and numerous other cases can be found in Caja 176.
321
In addition to traditional circuits o f supply and exchange, in the independence period Tegucigalpa and its anexos required each other for defense and information. In addition to assurances o f loyalty, the towns o f the district organized militias, provided advance notice o f troop movements in Comayagua, and occasionally had arms to offer as well. Justo Jose Herrera o f Choluteca, wrote as a son o f this pueblo, as captain o f the company of volunteers o f this villa, as je fe politico o f this partido, I have the honor to offer you all my influences, all my interests, and my life as a gift for the liberty and independence o f the pueblos o f Our Province, and those o f the rest o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala, that wish to enjoy them. Herrera, brother of the acting JP o f Tegucigalpa, Dionisio Herrera, sealed this promise with a remission of 30 shotguns and 1640 cartridges. The Choluteca city council sent a separate letter echoing his sentiments.83 Cantarranas intercepted mail from Comayagua to Danli for Tegucigalpa and Pespire warned o f Comayaguas plans to invade with troops from Leon and Truxillo in mid-December 1821.84 The towns also organized militias, conducting enlistment under the supervision o f the jefe politico, activating an 1820 instruction o f the Spanish Cortes previously circulated by Gainza.85 Tegucigalpa, using its connections with other cities, such as San Miguel and San Vicente in El Salvador, was able to import additional troops, and took on the burden of
83 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 164, no 275, f 13, 5 November, Jose Justo Herrera to Ayuntamiento Patriotico de Tegucigalpa and No. 276, Ayuntamiento de Choluteca al Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa, 5 November 1821. The ayuntamiento of Choluteca was made up o f Zenon Zufiiga, Jose Francisco Larios, Jose Tomas Funes, Jose Antonio Arsenal, Valeriano Jolla, and juan Jose Pinel, sec. 84 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 165, no 305, 13 December 1821, Ayuntamiento de Cantananas a la Ciudad de Tegucigalpa; Caja 162, No 108, 12 December 1821, Ayuntamiento de Pespire al Jefe Intendente de Tegucigalpa. 85 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 161, No 96. 24 October 1821. The Tegucigalpa council recalled a decree o f 18 October 1820, for citizens to form companies, enlisting and electing their own officials. Per article 27, the council elected mayor Felipe Reyes as lieutenant o f the third national company.
322
paying them.86 It also coordinated its own troops with those in the countryside, and the town council entrusted the organization of their troops to Francisco Aguirre, a Guatemalan native with economic ties in the region.87 Yet it is important to note that Tegucigalpa had to negotiate with each individual town that it wished to recruit to its cause, since the ties that bound each anexo to its cabecera did not necessarily foster cooperation between them. Thus, rather than reflecting a concerted effort at defense, the organization had come town by town. In October, for example, the mayor o f Texiguat, Benito Medina, asked the Tegucigalpa town council to send him a copy o f the regulations for forming the urban militia that was required, underlining that it would march in lockstep with Tegucigalpa, its cavecera}%The city council o f Juticalpa, in the meantime, was supplying arms to Tegucigalpas ayuntamiento on request, despite fears of an invasion by British and Zambo (Mosquito) forces.89 In November, Pespire also underlined its resistance to Comayaguas blandishments, and by December, the mayor of Pespire was informing the governor of Tegucigalpa that Comayagua, united with Leon and with troops from Trujillo, was planning to invade. He promised all the help that Tegucigalpa could ask
86
ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 162, No 130, 27 January 1822, Francisco Delgado and Toribio Melendez, to JP and Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa, The two sought funds for the San Miguel and San Vicente troops return to San Salvador. They were needed there to help their capital after its separation from Guatemalan government. Cost of maintaining just the Tegucigalpa garrison in March o f the same year was over 10 pesos daily. The funds covered costs o f only about 40 soldiers and officers. Even to meet this expense, the city fathers found themselves required to borrow funds from the JP. See Nos. 85, 90, 91. 87 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 161, No 94, Jose Cerra y Vigil to Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa, 18 October 1821, and No 95, Juan Alcaopey to Same, 28 October 1821, renouncing his position. Aguirre and his brother, Jose Maria, a merchant, both served in the Tegucigalpa militia in 1821. (La Poblacion de Tegucigalpa en 1821, Revista del Archivo y Biblioteca Nacional de Honduras, Nos. 24-27.) 88 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 161, No. 71, 26 October 1821, Alcalde del Ayuntamiento de Texiguat, Benito Medina, al Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa, formacion de tropas urbanas.
323
for.90 The province clearly rallied around its cabecera, and this, as well as Comayaguas acceptance of support from Nicaragua, played into Guatemalas decision to support the province against the Comayaguan annexation. Even after Comayagua had planned and earned out an aborted attack on the district to force integration in December 1821, and Salvadoran troops had retired from their protective positions, most towns remained loyal. Still, the relationship continued to be a direct line between the cabecera and anexos. Common enemies, however,did not seem to form the basis for a common provincial understanding. In January 1822, Juticalpa remained steadfast, as did Yuscaran, an important mining center where many wealthy Tegucigalpans had interests.91 Goascaran reiterated its addiction to Tegucigalpa in February 1822,92 as did Texiguat and Orocuina.93 In the end, neutral Danli also respected Tegucigalpa, perhaps in part because local landowner Dionicio
89 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 161, No. 72, 3 December 1821, Ayuntamiento de Juticalpa al ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. No 74, 21 December 1821, Mariano Gonzalez al Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. 90 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 162, No. 108, 12 December 1821, Mayor Nicolas Sanders to Jefe Interino, Tegucigalpa. No 163, 27 November 1821, Ayuntamiento de Pespire al Alcalde lo y Jefe Ynterino de la Provincia de Tegucigalpa. In the November letter, Sanders referred to the fact that Comayagua had attempted to paint Tegucigalpa and Guatemalas positions as despotic and anarchic. 91 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 165, no 316, 22 January 1822, Ayuntamiento de Juticalpa al Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa; and No 326, 1 February 1822, Ayuntamiento de Yuscaran al de Tegucigalpa. The Juticalpa council was made up o f Jose Cabahas, Pedro Barriento, Francisco Mendeta, Damian Mendoza, Pedro Baraona, Francisco Ylario Yrias, Timoteo M a(...), Yanuario Gonzales, and secretary Jose Gregorio Contreras. Yuscarans council included mayors Manuel Emigidio Vasquez, a Tegucigalpa merchant and miner, and Jose Manuel Cepeda; and aldermen Francisco Arguello, Ignacio Lagos, Teodoro Rodriguez, Marcelo Ordohes, and Estevan Rodriguez, and secretary, Calixto Harbin. It is likely that Ignacio Lagos was related to Guadalupe Lagos, a Tegucigalpa miner with interests in Yuscaran who would be mayor of Tegucigalpa in 1825. ANH (Tegucigalpa), Fondo DP, Caja 171-10. 92 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 163, no 178, 22 February 1822, Ayuntamiento de Goascaran a la Ciudad de Tegucigalpa. Alcaides are Marcelo Ferofino y Juan de Dios Calisto, who is also ju ez politico. 93 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 165, no 338, 25 February 1822, Ayuntamiento de Texiguat al Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa, no. 340, 7 March 1822, Ayuntamiento de Orocuina a Tegucigalpa. Texiguats council was Miguel Peres, Benito Medina, Luiz Alvares, Vicente Funes de Espinal and Vicente Rodriguez, interim secretary. Benito Medina, likely an uncle o f Angel Medina o f Danli (see note 60), also had studied in Guatemals Colegio Seminario in the 1770s.
324
Herrera, with strong ties there, received a simultaneous appointment by Gainza in Guatemala as the new governor o f the province (jefe politico subaltemo).94 There seems to be only one case in which Comayagua initially achieved a conquest of a Tegucigalpa anexo. This case shows the importance that control or influence of a town council exerted, even in a small village. The town o f Cedros was seduced in 1821 to join with Comayagua over Tegucigalpa, and to favor the Mexican empire. By 1823, however, with the erection o f an independent Central American federation, the village divided over whether or not to continue with the new alliance. A group signing themselves The Miners o f Cedros reported the existence o f a group that favored returning Cedros to Tegucigalpas authority. The miners claimed that the town council scribe, Gregorio Contreras, a Tegucigalpa native, led this group and had attempted to depose the elected mayor, Francisco Gardela, also a Tegucigalpan (Both men would later serve on the Tegucigalpa city council). By late 1823, the Cedros city council lobbied for resumption of the Tegucigalpa connection, and wrote to the Asamblea Nacional Constituyente (ANC), begging to be reunited with a town o f free men, who have known to sustain their rights, with which Cedros shared not only commercial and family ties, but a relationship based on mining and agriculture. Contreras drafted the letter to the ANC that underlined how Comayagua had, in 1821, urged Cedros'separation from both Guatemala and Tegucigalpa, although Cedros had
94 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 165, no 328, 18 February 1822, Ayuntamiento de Danli al Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. The Danli town council was made up o f Antonio Jose Lazo de la Vega, Jose Firrafino, Vicente Firrafino, Simon Diaz, Miguel Antonio Roxas, Angel Maria Medina and secretary Ramon Arriaga. Angel Medina had family ties with the Ydiaquez and Aranda families in Tegucigalpa, the
325
not received the slightest injury (agravio ) from these two Cities. Under Contreras guidance, and perhaps pressure, the municipality o f Cedros reconsidered and, in 1823, found the switch o f allegiance illegitimate and prejudicial, undertaken by false claims about the benefits that union with Comayagua and the Mexican Empire were to have produced.95 The story o f Cedros is just one case in the competition between Tegucigalpa and Comayagua between 1821 and 1823 to expand and consolidate, respectively, control over the extensive jurisdiction o f the alcaldia mayor. The means by which Cedros was persuaded to return to the Tegucigalpan fold, however, reflects the tools available to a cabecera to influence its anexos. The cabecera was able to send or make use o f its native sons living in outlying districts to cajole, urge and even threaten the less wellconnected members o f the community to choose Tegucigalpa. In 1821, Tegucigalpa native Francisco Garay served a key role as mayor o f the town o f Juticalpa in assuring the alliance of his district with our just cause. The steps he took included collecting a donation o f 79 pesos and sending some shotguns and merited special thanks from Tegucigalpas ayuntamiento .96 Greogrio Contreras, also o f Tegucigalpa, served as secretary not just in Cedros, when that town voted to rejoin Tegucigalpa in late 1822, but earlier in the year in Juticalpa. Presumably, Contrerass presence buttressed the decision to express willingness to take up arms on its new capitals behalf, since
Cordova and Najera families in Guatemala and the Coello family in Choluteca. He himself had studied philosophy in the Colegio Seminario in Guatemala in the 1810s. (Tridentino, 1810) AGCA B Legajo 98, Expediente 2707. Sobre la adhesion de Cedros a Tegucigalpa o a Comayagua. 96 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 164, no 295, 5 December 1821, Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa a Francisco Garay. The letter referred to Garay as a good son of Tegucigalpa."
326
Garays 1821 term as mayor had ended.97 Yet a third example, from this one district, is that ofTexiguats municipal secretary and schoolmaster in 1821, Joaquin Rivera, who was a direct descendant o f Estevan Rivera, a Tegucigalpa cabildante o f the early 1800s, and a relative o f contemporary Riveras. Rivera was also married into the powerful Marquez family there, and would later serve as president o f Honduras (1833-1836).98 One way, then, that Tegucigalpa was able to influence the politics o f its pueblos was through assignment, loan or use o f a man with strong family and economic ties to the cabecera to serve in a municipal capacity in an anexo. As an educated person, connected to the cabecera, as well as in service as the official drafter o f municipal correspondence, such a person was in a good position to guarantee that the town councils he worked for acted in conformity with that capitals wishes. The ties that bound the anexos to the cabecera, could be reinforced through individual attention and perhaps indirect threat. In cases where Tegucigalpas cabildantes suspected that a town was not resisting Comayaguas blandishments, they took various measures. In November 1821, they instructed Justo Jose Herrera to bring the mayor o f Nacaome, Benito Contreras, to the city for questioning.99 When Silvestre Tome, the priest o f Nacaome, was reported
97 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 165, No. 316, 12 January 1822, Letter o f judcalpa to Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa, 12 January 1822. Gregorio Contreras served as secretary of both these councils, and in 1823 was secretary in Tegucigalpa proper. 98 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 161, No 71, Alcalde o f Ayuntamiento of Texiguat, Benito Medina, to Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa, Joaquin Rivera signs as secretary. Medina also had relations in Tegucigalpa. See www.hondudata.com/enciclopedia/enciclonew/honduras/presidentes/ioaquinrivera.htm for more on Riveras political career. 99 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 162, 26 Nov 1821, Justo Jose Herrera, Choluteca, to Alcalde 1 y Mayor interino. Herrera was unable to fulfill the comision, since mayor Benito Contreras had gone to the feria
327
to be forming a faction (the Central American term for political parties opposed to the government), they wrote asking him to cease subverting his parishioners. The indignant curate responded that he had no such intention and that if the Nacaome mayor chose to publish Comayaguas providencias as well as Tegucigalpas. He claimed he had had no part in it nor influence over the mayors actions, since this civil official was not under Tomes dominion. Further, Tome suggested that it was praiseworthy if the tranquil town opted for neither side, remaining neutral as the only means to preserve its reputation and tranquility.100 By May 1822, the two sides were in conflict (movimientos) but the beginnings o f reconciliation were about to commence. Juan Lindo, a Honduran native and newlynamed governor of Comayagua, attempted to win Tegucigalpas loyalty in June 1822, with an emphasis on the end to government from another world. 101 It was another mechanism, however, that would have permanent effect. On October 16, Comayagua sued Tegucigalpa for peace for the first time, one ayuntamiento to another, bypassing the medium of governors and diputaciones provinciates. The former capital wrote that now the time had come to clarify the political situation and fill with honor both pueblos, ending the rivalries, disunions, and divergences that former governments had embroiled them in. Comayagua offered a meeting between two representatives o f each side in Rancho Grande, to avoid a civil war. The meeting was to include a three-day banquet,
in San Miguel. He received assurances that the rest o f the cabildo o f Nacaome would put Contreras under house arrest upon his return. 100 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 164, no 283, 21 November 1821, Silvestre Tome, Nacaome to Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. Nacaome was responding to a 6 November letter. 1 0 1 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 165, No. 366, 25 June 1822, Juan Lindo to Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa.
328
embraces to show fraternity, and publication o f the peace throughout the Empire to serve as an example for other pueblos in like case.102 It was too early for reconciliation, but agreement o f the two municipalities was what was required to reach a solution. How was the breach finally healed? Between Tegucigalpa and Comayagua, it would take a decision to alternate the capital between the two cities that led to agreement to form a single province, or state. Between the smaller districts divided in the civil war o f 1822, other mechanisms were used to attempt reunification. Although most modifications o f allegiance within state boundaries were resolved, either peacefully or through coercion within the state, those outstanding in 1823 went to the ANC for decision. Nacaome, which sided with Comayagua in the conflict, had previously included Pespire among the towns that recognized it as a cabecera. Despite Pespires willingness to take up arms against Comayagua, Nacaome issued an invitation to its former anexo to send an elector to the scheduled elections o f Comayaguas deputy to the Mexican congress o f 1822-1823. A few days later, Nacaome mayor Comelio Valle also resisted orders to allow soldiers to march on Pespire to remove their commander, Francisco Yzaguirre, from prison. Valle recognized the fatal results... that could upset Pespire and deprive it o f peace and tranquility, and opted to dispatch the other mayor, Francisco Gutierrez, to ensure his moderation was noted. He also noted the intimate, that is family and economic relations, which had contributed to
102 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 165, No 379, 16 October 1822, Ayuntamiento de Comayagua al de Tegucigalpa. The Comayagua council was: Victor Rodas, Josef de la Pasqua, Secundino Quifiones, Juan Jose Mendoza, Juan de la Rosa Muhos, Jose Leon Rios, Rafael Bustillo, and secretary Ciriaco Vasquez.
329
the true brotherhood and inalterable harmony that linked the two towns.103 Democratic mechanisms, especially those that included power sharing in some institutionalized form, proved to be an adequate, if not ideal, means o f tending to the damage on the surface and permitting the normalization o f relations that had become inimical in the intoxication o f independence. With the ANC in session, a newly-elected ayuntamiento in Comayagua (per decree o f ANC of 23 August) once again repeated its desires to work together for common interests. This new municipality did refer to the municipality o f the city o f Tegucigalpa.104 A similar mechanism resolved the political fate o f Cedros, which had switched from Tegucigalpa to Comayagua in the early days of independence. The Cedros town council had previously petitioned the Honduran state government, located in Comayagua, to return to the jurisdiction o f Tegucigalpa, but had been rejected as making an indecorous request. Nonetheless, the jefe politico o f Honduras, a former Spanish official and straightforward and honorable man, followed the new regulations and forwarded the case to the ANC for resolution. The ANCs Government Commission initially recommended leaving Cedros attached to Comayagua until the Constitutional Committee could determine the division o f the new Federations territory. The Honduran committee member, Joaquin Lindo, representing Comayagua, likely weighed heavily in this decision. However, when the full congress considered
1 0 3 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 168, No 544, 22 February 1822, Letter o f Ayuntamiento de Nacaome al de Pespire; No 546, 27 February 1822, Comelio Valle, Mayor of Nacaome. 1 0 4 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 165, No 402, 17 November 1823, Municipalidad de Comayagua a la Municipalidad de la Ciudad de Tegucigalpa. Comayaguas cabildo was: Jose Severino Quifiones,
330
the committee's recommendation, it resolved to return Cedros to the district o f Tegucigalpa until a final decision was made.105
***
The dynamic o f a resistant city or town using the mechanisms o f persuasion, election or coercion to convince its anexos to support its pretensions and to recruit new districts was widespread. The battle between Comayagua and Tegucigalpa represents just one example. In El Salvador, San Salvador sought to include Sonsonate, Santa Ana, Chalchuapa, Ahuachapan and San Miguel in its break from Guatemala and Mexico in January 1822. The Guatemalan junta, in return, when hearing o f Santa Anas resistance to the Salvadoran overtures, determined to separate that district from El Salvador and unite it with Sonsonate. It dispatched Chilean-bom sergeant major Nicolas Abos Padilla in order to assure the incorporation.106 Arturo Taracena has sorted out the strands in the case o f Quezaltenango (Guatemala), which in November 1821 sought to aggregate neighboring provinces to support its ambition to be a separate district within the Mexican empire. As in Honduras, Quezaltenango first invited other highland towns to jo in their districts in a
Francisco Cantarero, Juan Romero, German Guerrero, Raimundo Boquin, Jose Gregorio Doblado, Jose Maria Guerrero, Juan Ignacio Maradiaga, Francisco Bueso, Juan Solano, and Miguel R. Cubas, Secretary 1 0 5 AGCA B Legajo 98 Expediente 2707. The Cedros municipality letter o f 6 October 1823 went first to the jefe politico superior o f Honduras (Comayagua), who sent it to the his homologue in the Federation on the grounds that redistricting was not one o f his responsibilities. This je fe forwarded the case to the ANC, which took its decision on 2 February 1824. The citys lener, drafted and written by Gregorio Contreras, was signed by the members o f the city council. Most were literate, although only two members, Ysidro P. Yzaguiire and Juan Lorenzo Cruz, had handwriting o f well-educated men. The other literate councilors were Mariano Membrefio, Manuel de Jesus Soto, Felipe Mencia, Nolasco Membrefio, and Jose Luciano Zepeda. Two members were illiterate or not present, regent Antonio Jose Leyva (?) and sindic Feliciano Mendes. The Miners o f Cedros lener is undated, but was copied in Comayagua on 15 October 1823. 106 Monterey, Historia de El Salvador, p. 76.
331
separatist movement, writing to Solola, Totonicapan and even towns as distant as Antigua Guatemala. As in Honduras, when invitations proved insufficient, the Quezaltenango authorities used force. They sent troops and agents to ensure regional primacy by wresting Huehuetenango and the valley o f Salcaja from the control o f San Miguel Totonicapan, the regional capital. They also sought to annex parts of Suchitepequez that were contiguous to Guatemala and could provide a Pacific coast outlet. As in Honduras, different towns sought different means o f protection. One, Huehuetenango, resisted the appeal, apparently believing that expressing loyalty to Guatemala City would lead to a desired elevation to the rank o f intendancy and the increase o f the number o f subject pueblos. Another, Totonicapan, protested to Iturbide that Quezaltenango wants to annex pueblos to have a greater extension that makes it capable o f being a Capital. Although initially inclined to take a hard line, Gainza and Mariano Aycinena, leading the JPC in Guatemala, determined by August 1822 to grant Quezaltenango effective control of a vast highland district to avoid direct confrontation. Quezaltenango would have its jefe politico, whose jurisdiction would extend to the districts o f Solola, Totonicapan, Suchitepequez, and part o f Soconusco.107 As in Honduras, it was the towns o f its designated region that Quezaltenango sought to annex, presuming they would bring both land and residents with them. For at least a brief period, in the fall o f 1822, it seemed that here, as in Honduras, the tactic would succeed.
107 Taracena, Invention Criolla, pp. 88-93.
332
City Council and Power In the interregnum, both the institution and members o f the city councils o f Central America found their power unblemished. With the Spanish Constitution still determining responsibilities, town and city councils retained the significant government functions o f the Cadiz period (see Chapter 5). As we saw above, they found that in a period of upheaval, some responsibilities, such as the municipal role in organizing militias and collecting donativos, led to increasing visibility and influence when choosing sides in intra- and inter-provincial confrontations. Further, as the juntas provincials fought to establish authority over vast expanses o f territory, they turned to city councils to support and fund their goals; this meant that city councils also had the power to thwart provincial aspirations. Independence provided Central American towns the chance to prove that it was not Spain, but local interest, that made an electoral system work. Regardless o f the district, all acting governors and juntas continued to apply the electoral system set up by the Spanish Cortes, in which popular elections selected parish and then partido representatives who would in turn vote for local and national officeholders. These laws were used in practice, since Central American towns were comfortable with them both from the 1812-1814 introduction and the revival o f 1820-1821. Each December during the interregnum, local electoral juntas would convene to select the mayors, sindics and aldermen for the subsequent year. Even in disputed cases, the laws o f Cadiz served as the basis for resolution. Thus, when Inocente Vega of Dolores Ysalco sought in 1822 to renounce his election as mayor for 1823, he appealed to the district jefe politico, in this
333
case, the governor o f Sonsonate, arguing that his loss of an eye made him unfit for the post. Although governor Jose Fernandez Padilla agreed to exempt Vega on these grounds, he was chastised by the man elected to replace Vega, Lorenzo Castillo, who argued that the Cadiz decrees in effect only gave the jefe politico superior, and not each department's jefe politico, the power to annul an election. Fernandez Padilla, after this reminder, forwarded each mans request for exemption to acting governor and Mexican military chief Vicente Filisola, who upheld the first election. Vega assumed his office on 30 January 30 1823, a mere 45 days after his first complaint.
i ns
One o f the interesting points that becomes clear in considering the makeup o f municipal councils is the unprecedented power that accrued to the city secretary, who often served in other capacities, such as town notary or scribe. As the drafter and executor o f official municipal documents, the secretary had an important platform from which to influence local politics. As seen above, in the towns attached to Tegucigalpa, elites from the cabecera could be found serving in this post in order to smooth communications between capital and anexo and influence local decision-making. This secretarial importance was far from unique. Householder ( vecino ) of Ahuachapan, Estevan Duran, denounced the municipal secretary o f his town (pueblo), Jose Norberto Moran, for propagating ideas in favor o f the republican system and sharing with town
108 AMS, Caja, Juzgados, 1821-1829, No 2. El Sor. Ynocente Bega, de Yzalco se escusa dl nombramLo de Alcalde, 1822, No. 13. Fernandez Padilla was a lieutenant coronel and the military commander as well as jefe politico o f Sonsonate district {partido), and served in the Sonsonate city council as mayor in 1821 and alderman in 1835-1836. The other officiating members o f the Ysalco town council were Judas Tomas Delgado, Atanacio Monzon, Jose Francisco del Castillo, Cristobal Trejo (?), Casimiro Menendes, and an alderman named Viscarra. Secretary Felipe Zequeyna signed for the missing aldermen.
334
residents the writings (escritos) o f (Jose Francisco)Barrundia.
i no
Bammdia was a
young liberal of Guatemala City whose prolific and anti-imperialist writings were not always well-received. Yet, as was also clear above, city mayors retained traditional influence as well. The San Salvador mayor, Casimiro Garcia Valdevellano, was one o f the few deposed in 1821. This Spaniard, resented by the liberal and republican elite o f the Salvadoran capital, was deposed in early November to end his use o f the municipal platform to promote union with Mexico.110 The mayor o f the same town, Marcelino Mendoza, was arrested when forces from Guatemala sent to force San Salvador to accept union with Guatemala and Mexico laid charges against him o f having corresponded with dissidents o f San Salvador. It took two weeks under interrogation, for Mendoza to name individuals who inclined toward the republican system and to explain the means used by the Salvadorans to increase support for their republican party.11 1 When asked, the council syndic, Miguel Arevalo, said that the actual addict o f the republican system was Norberto Moran, who maintained a correspondence with Juan Manuel Rodriguez, vecino of San Salvador.112
109 AGCA B 5 .ll Legajo 75, Expedience 2246, 6 March 1822. 110 AGCA B5.4 Legajo 59, Expediente 1380, f. 3. Valdevellanos fled for refuge to Guatemala City where he wrote on 13 November that the general population (la generalidad) favors Iturbide...for there are really few who want a Republic, and these are precipitando , so we will thus be Mexican. 1 1 1 AGCA B5.11, Legajo 75, Expediente 2246, f.5, 12. 29 March and 12 April 1822. Manuel Romero and Antonio Prado to Coronel Manuel Arzu, Comandante General de la Columna Exped. de Guate contra San Salvador. On his arrest on 29 March, Mendoza could or would not identify individuals; on 12 April, 2 weeks later, he did. 112 AGCA B5.11, Legajo 25, Expediente 2246, f. 25. 24 April 1822. Arevalo also suggested that Moran was interested in ensuring that Salvadoran troops stationed in Santa Ana come to Ahuachapan.
335
The actual importance o f the city council in this period cannot be better underlined than by looking at the men who filled its seats. In 1821, the year in which Central America achieved its bloodless independence from Spain, the seats in important city councils were filled with men o f political acuity, ambition and power. A selection from three town councils o f 1821Guatemala City, Tegucigalpa, and Sonsonate shows cabildantes holding elective state and federal office as presidents, vicepresidents, ministers, congressmen and senators well into the 1840s. Additionally, it demonstrates that this group o f individuals also served as a resource when executives nominated departmental governors. (See Table 6.3) Nor were these three town councils the only ones to have distinguished members in this year. Cirilo Flores, an architect o f Quezaltenangos independence movement and later president o f Guatemala, served as mayor in his town in this year.113 The overlap o f municipal, state and national office holding would continue throughout this period.114 Although municipal officeholding retained its cachet for men o f political interests and ambition well into the nineteenth century, few years saw as distinguished a selection o f cabildantes as 1821, when voters responsive to ongoing upheavals in Mexico and Peru selected individuals perceived capable and stable enough to manage whatever crisis or transition arose.
1 1 3 Taracena, Invencion Criolla, p. 86. Flores also represented Quezaltenango in the ANC o f 1823-1824. 114 See Chapter 7.
336
Table 6J City Councilors of Guatemala City, Sonsonate, Tegucigalpa, 1821 Position

Alcalde 1 Alcalde 1(2) Alcalde 2 Alcalde 3 Regidor 1 Regidor 2 Regidor 3 Regidor 4 Regidor 5 Regidor 6 Regidor 7 Regidor 8 Regidor 9 Regidor 10 Regidor 11 Regidor 12 Sindic 1 Sindic 2 Secretary F uture P olitical P resident
Guatemala City
Lie. Jose Cecilio del Valle Mariano Larrave MD Satumino del Campo Ariza Lie. Antonio Robles CpL Miguel Jose Manrrique Lie. Jose Antonio Larrave J.Antonio Espanol y Lopez Lie. Pedro Jose Valenzuela Jose Maria Cardenas Romualdo Quifionez Manuel Perales Jose Petit Carlos Avila Pedro Sologa(i)stua Jeronimo Cladera Isidoro Valle y Castriciones L. Mariano Aycinena y Pifiol Lie. Pedro Arroyave Lie. Jose Fco. Cordova Posts
Tegucigalpa
Felipe Santos Reyes Estevan Guardiola Mariano Urmeneta Francisco Juares Juan Estrada Dionisio Gutierrez Manuel Ugarte Leon Vasquez Tomas Midense Basilio Gomez Juan Alcaya y Vigo Santiago Bueso
Sonsonate
Jose Fernandez Padilla Mariano Rodriguez M anuel Paredes M anuel H. Romero M ariano Martinez Casimiro Garcia Francisco Rivas Jose Maria Cea
Eusebio Ruiz Dionisio de Herrera
Joaquin Sosa Rafael Rivas Eduardo Vega
* Dionisio Herrera -Honduras (1824) * Mariano Aycinena-Guatemala (1827) * Jose Cecilio del Valle- Executive, UPCA (1824), Federation (1834, died before taking office) Vice President * Jose Cecilio del Valle-Federation (refused) * Pedro Jose Valenzuela-Guatemala (1835) M inister * Pedro Jose ValenzuelaFederation (1830, Hacienda), Guatemala (1832, Secretary general) * Jose Francisco de Cordova-Guatemala (1827, Secretary general) * Felipe Reyes-Honduras (1825, Consejero de Estado) * Manuel Romero-El Salvador (Consejero de Estado; Chief of Section, General Ministry)
C ongressm an
* Mariano AycinenaGuatemala (Verapaz, 1839; 1841; 1842-1843) * Jose Antonio Larrave-ANC (Esquipulas, Guat, 1823-5), Guatemala (Sacatepequez, 1829) * Pedro Jose Valenzuela-Guatemala (Chimaltenango, 1824) * Jose Francisco de CordovaANC (Santa Ana, El Salvador, 1823-5); Federation (Congressman, 1825-6; Senator, 1835) * Jose C. del ValleFed. (Congressman, 1826) * Francisco Rivas-Fed. (Congress, 1827) * Jose Santiago Bueso SotomayorComayagua (DP, 1821), Honduras (1825, Truxillo; 1839) * Manuel Romero-El Salvador (1824, Congreso Constitucional; later senator); Federation G overnor * Francisco Juares-Tegucigalpa, 1830; 1846-1847, 1850 * Esteban Guardiola-Teguc., 1821 * Francisco Rivas-Sonsonate, 1827 Judge * Eusebio Ruiz-Tegucigalpa, 1841
M ilitary
337
* Jose Fernandez Padilla-Sargento Mayor, 1821-1823 * Capt. Miguel Jose Manrrique, 1821 * Capt. Francisco Juares, 1825 Sources (Table 6.3): Romero, Guion Historico delpoder legislativei de El Salvador, l aParte: Constituyentes-Legislaturas y sintesis biogrdjicas des sus presidentes. 1822- 70 (San Salvador: Publicaciones de la Asamblea Legislativa, 1966); Marure, Efemeridades; www.hondudata.com/enciclopedia/enciclonew/honduras/goberaantes.html Conclusion Between September and November 1821, the principal cities of Central America declared their independence from Spain. Although a junta provicional consultiva (JPC) established in Guatemala City in the fall of 1821 claimed to act for all the former provinces o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala, competing jun/a? existed or erected themselves in each, and for the most part represented the will o f one city and its elites to control politics within a specific region. Often, they failed to do so. Thus, it cannot be said that a unified government in fact controlled the region in this period. Furthermore, while between January 1822 and June 1823, the former colony officially joined the Mexican Empire, this new affiliation did not lead to coordinated government. From June 1822, Colonel Vicente Filisolasent by Mexican emperor Agustin Iturbide at the head o f a military column to govern and to ensure Central Americas annexationlived and worked with the authorities in Guatemala City. Yet Filisola, with Mexican and Guatemalan troops, spent much o f his time in Central America bringing recalcitrant provinces El Salvador and Nicaragua into the fold. Mexican laws, including a redistricting o f the former Kingdom o f Guatemala into three provinces, were implemented on a piecemeal basis.115 The provincial juntas continued to work through
1 1 5 Monterey, Historia de El Salvador, p 97. The 9 November 1822 order o f Iturbide to divide Guatemala into 3 comandartcias generatesChiapas, Nueva Guatemala, Leon de Nicaraguaunder Brigadiers Miguel Gonzalez Saravia, Vicente Filisola, and Manuel Rincon, was never implemented.
338
their governors, rather than cooperating with forces in Guatemala City, and except in the case o f Costa Rica, the divisions within each province seemed to widen rather than heal during the interregnum o f 1821-1823. In the meantime, old and new city councils acted on the belief that with the Spanish compact broken, they had the right to decide on their political future, not simply on the responsibility o f local administration and obedience to a cabecera. The conservative historian Manuel Montufar y Coronado was not far wrong in blaming the hotheads (exaltados ) [of Guatemala] for having founded the anarchic dogma that the pueblos, on becoming independent from Spain, recovered their natural liberty, and were free to form new societies according to their convenience in the new order o f things. 116 The problem had become much greater than what to do with a dozen provinces upon independence; by 1823, Central American leaders had to ponder what to do with 200 towns. By the beginning o f 1823, then, when the Mexican Empire showed strong signs o f self-destructing from within, it was clear that the union with Mexico would not work. First, the tensions within Central America were too great to support any joint or even individual decision to join the political powerhouse to the north. Second, it became clear that Mexico itself was not prepared to invest politically or militarily to back up its supporters, except in Chiapas, where trading interest was strong. If previous elites had complained at the distances between Guatemala City and their provincial capitals, a year o f slow and laborious correspondence with Mexico City simply confirmed that distant capitals provided more drawbacks than advantages. Third, and perhaps most
116 Manuel Montufar y Coronado, Memorias para la historia de la Revolucion de Centro-america (1832).
339
important, the Mexican Empire that Central Americans had supported (however reluctantly and intermittently) had disintegrated, and the power vacuum in Mexico City made home rule seem more sensible. Thus, in March 1823, when Vicente Filisola moved to revive the abrogated 1821 convocation o f a Central American constituent assembly to reconsider the question o f the isthmus political futureabsolute independence or continued union with the beleaguered Mexican empirethe call met with support as towns and provinces moved to elect deputies to attend the Congress. The Asamblea Nacional Constituyente (ANC), which opened its doors in June 1823 and eventually included representatives from Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala and El Salvador, formally declared absolute independence in October o f the same year. After two years o f paying the economic and political price o f promoting local over regional politics, the elites of provincial towns and cities determined to participate in a true national project. While the differences and divisions that surfaced so disruptively in 1821 had not been resolved, for the moment, at least, elites o f the former Kingdom o f Guatemala had decided to attempt a joint solution.
340
Chapter 7: City, State and Nation in Central America, 1825-1839: From Pueblos to Pueblo, Creating the National State The pueblo of the Federal Republic o f Central America is sovereign and independent. The pueblo of the Republic is formed by all o f its inhabitants. Constitution of the Federal Republic o f Central America, 1824 Title 1, Articles 1 and 3. We, the representatives of the pueblos included in the Intendancy of S. Salvador and Alcaldfa Mayor o f Sonsonate, met in a Constituent Congress... Preamble, Constitution o f El Salvador, 1824 We, the representatives o f the Salvadoran pueblo, met in a Constituent Assembly... Preamble, Constitution o f El Salvador, 1841 On June 24, 1823, the General Congress of the former Kingdom o f Guatemala began its sessions. A week later, having taken the name Asamblea Nacional Constituyente (ANC), the congress began the work o f healing the wounds o f the interregnum and establishing the legal bases for a federation. After declaring independence from Spain and Mexico for the Provincias Unidas del Centro de America (UPC A) on July 1, the ANC set to work to establish a republican system with separation of executive, judicial and legislative functions. For the first time, the territory separating Mexico from South America assumed a common nameCentral America that did not reflect one of its partsGuatemalabut instead the assembled whole. This linguistic shift represented a concession to the many regions that opted to participate in the federation but wished to assure that Guatemala City and its elites would not dominate the new government.
341
Not content with renaming the land it would govern, the ANC set out an entire program o f linguistic changes that reflected new ways o f thinking about government and society. Some extended principles first adopted under the Spanish constitution. Former Spaniards, Creoles, Indians, ladinos and mulatos became citizens. Some were new, and derived from other influences. As had happened in France and the United States following their revolutions, titles of nobility, including the honorific Don applied to all pure-blooded Spaniards, were abolished; diocesan titles were limited to the inoffensive padre (Father) rather than excellency and other titles previously enjoyed by bishops and archbishops. Equally fundamentally, a rebaptism o f the institutions o f political authority hinted at a break with the past. Drawing from the language o f the French revolution, the ANC renamed the audiencias o f the past cortes territoriales (territorial courts); the plethora o f provinces became departamentos and distritos/partidos (departments and districts) and the ayuntamientos became municipalidades (municipalities) which provided the base unit for the larger districts.1 Provinces, o f course, were to become states. The Central American motto, Dios, Union, Libertad (God, Union, Liberty) adopted by the ANC became the close on official correspondence, replacing the traditional Dios guarde a Ud. Muchos anos (God keep
1 For a complete discussion o f the debates in the French congress to turn a plethora of pre-revolutionary royal, noble, religious and municipal districts into a standardized and codifled whole, see Ted W. Margadant, Urban Rivalries in the French Revolution (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), Chapter 2 and Chapter 6. Proposals for the division of former districts into departements differed over whether the new territories should be equal in criteria such as physical territory, number o f inhabitants, or wealth o f inhabitants. Concern was also shown on maintaining the independence o f extant municipalities. The 23 July 1823 decree which renamed territory and inhabitants is mentioned in Alejandro Marure, Efemerides de los hechos acaecidos en la republica de Centro-America desde el aho de 1821 hasta el de 1842, Vol. 9, Biblioteca Guatemalteca de Cultura Popular (Guatemala: Editorial del Ministerio de Educacion Publica, 1956 (1844)), p. 18.
342
you many years). Easily and permanently adopted, these linguistic shifts were nonetheless felt to be extremely important Alejandro Marure, one o f Central Americas politicians and its first post-independence historian, highlighted the new terms in a special entry in his timeline o f important events o f the period.2 If renaming the institutions o f government and territorial demarcations was quickly achieved and equally quickly applied, a more fundamental shift in the nature of political thinking was much harder to accomplish and even harder to name. Central Americans reached independence as part o f municipal communities. It was the pueblos o f the isthmus that had proclaimed independence and opted to join a federation. How were the new leaders going to take the pueblos, the sovereign towns, and make one pueblo, or one people? How would the federal pueblo relate to the pueblos o f the states? Before examining the language adopted by the ANC to address the problem of determining in which community, or set of communities, sovereignty would lie, it behooves us to define our terms. As Jose Carlos Chiaramonte noted for Argentina in the early nineteenth century, the word pueblo is one o f the terms that brings most confusion resulting... from the coexistence in the era o f Independence o f both old and new meanings.3 The same multiplicity of meanings existed also in Central America. Yet, for all the possible meanings o f the term pueblo, Central American usage was consistent in the 1820s. According to political usage, a pueblo was the free association
2 Marure, Efemerides, page 18. 3 Jose Carlos Chiaramonte, Ciudades. Provincias, Estados: Origenes de la Nacion Argentina, 1800-1846 ([Buenos Aires]: Editora Espasa Calpe, 1997), p. 114.
343
o f individuals who chose to live under one set o f laws, and could refer to either the collective inhabitants o f the federation, any one o f the states, or an individual town. The plural, pueblos, referred to the collection o f city-states, the republicas, whose sovereignty had allowed them to choose their form o f government, or to the collection o f states that made up the federation. Although pueblo was often the preferred term to refer to political communities, it was not the only one in use. Central American politicians used the word nacion, or nation, in the 1820s and 1830s, as a synonym for the pueblo that made up the federation. At this time, nacion did not have the connotation o f a homogeneous people but of a reunion o f many Pueblos and Provinces subject to the same central government and the same laws.4 As the ANC declared in its bases for the 1824 constitution, States (Estados) were the great moral bodies that compose the nacion, the legislative centers that reproduce in different points the constitutive principles o f the republic and generate and direct the internal life o f society... The nation was simply a confederation o f states whose inhabitants agreed to be bound by a common set o f laws.5 Given the municipal independence of Central America, this definition is the only way to understand the appellation o f a national congress o f 1823. The different pueblos of Central America had, by electing deputies to the congress, agreed to work jointly to establish a mutually acceptable political system, or nation.
4 The quote is from an 1815 article in the Gazeta de Buenos-Ayres cited in Chiaramonte, Ciudades, P rovincias, Estados , p. 116. 5 Informe Sobre la Constitucion leido en la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente el 23 de mayo de 1824, reprinted in Carmelo Saenz de Santa Maria, El proceso ideologico-institucional desde la Capitania
344
The linguistic answer o f the ANC to the question o f how to turn dozens o f pueblos into one pueblo was a precipitous decision to bond the pueblos, or towns, o f Central America into pueblos, or states o f a federation, making them a pueblo, or people. Article 1 o f the 1824 Constitution reads, T he pueblo of the Federal Republic o f Central America is sovereign and independent. Article 3 continues, The pueblo o f the Republic is formed by all o f its inhabitants.6 In both cases, the pueblo meant the political entity created. The people o f the federation became one pueblo only in the sense o f being part o f a voluntary political association, not in the sense of forming a new homogeneous society. The states o f the new federation were supposed to form such an association. As Mariano Aycinena pointed out a decade later from exile in the United States, the ANC deputies took it upon themselves to establish a federation before there were, in fact, states to make it up.7 The delineation o f the territoriesor selection o f the pueblosthat would make up each state o f the new Central American republic was among the most challenging tasks of the ANC. Under the Spanish Constitution and Gainzas electoral divisions, the four intendancies o f San Salvador, Chiapas, Nicaragua and Comayagua provided an important basis for political division, and most historians
General de Guatemala hasta las provincias unidas del Centro de America: de provincias a estados Revista de lndias 38:151/152 (1978), pp. 260, 279. 6 Constitution of the Federal Republic o f Central America, 1824, Title 1, Articles 1 and 3. The word nation appeared only once in the 1824 constitution , as the subject o f Title 1, O f the Nation and its Territory. 7 Un Centroamericano [Mariano Aycinena], Otras Rejlexiones sobre reforma politico en Centro-America (New York: Imprenta de Don Juan de la Granja, 1834), p. 6. Arguing that North American deputies in the same situation had agreed to an alliance before they created a federation, Aycinena castigated the deputies for having more presumption than knowledge. Why, he asked, did they not limit themselves like the others to proclaim the sovereignty, liberty and independence of our provinces?
345
claim that the intendancies were an uncontested blueprint on which the ANC modeled the new federations states.8 Still, the task of the ANC was not so simple. Still-extant corregimientos in the area around Guatemala City remained independent districts, as did the alcaldias mayores o f Tegucigalpa and Sonsonate.9 The governorship o f Costa Rica retained a separate political identity despite its attachment to Nicaragua. Chiapas had apparently elected to remain part o f Mexico when the other areas o f the Kingdom of Guatemala had proclaimed their independence. Furthermore, as we saw in the previous chapter, between 1821-1823 even small political districts (partidos) and municipal regions within these larger units expressed ambition to reorganize and expand their political reach and complicated the work o f the ANC deputies. These, and not the intendancies, were the politically sovereign pueblos that had participated in independence, and were the direct electors o f the congress deputies and were the units the ANC had to consider when attempting to compose the new states. The ANC certainly recognized the importance o f acting in a way that acknowledged the political status o f the municipal-sized pueblos. Its early decisions show its preparedness to consider forming polities distinct from the model that holds that intendancies would become states. Among the earliest acts, on July 17, 1823, the congress called for new municipal elections and allowed establishment o f diputaciones provinciates in Quezaltenango, Tegucigalpa, Chiquimula, and anywhere else considered
8 See for example Thomas L. Karnes, The Failure o f Union: Central America. 1824-1960 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1961), Miles Wortman, Government and Society in Central America. 1680-1840 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982) and Carlos Melendez, La Independencia de Centro America (Madrid: MAPFRE, 1993). 9 For more details, see Chapter 4.
346
necessary, with the requisite determination o f territory before such bodies were to open.1 0 Districts with pretensions to self-government and separation from a resented colonial capital could thus be assured that while discussion on state-formation ensued, their aspirations would be considered. The open attitude o f the ANC was entirely consonant with the petitions it received from deputies elected by the districts within each larger province or intendancy. If the many districts o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala had put aside their animosity to join in a congress, they had not forgotten their grievances or ambitions. The town and pueblos o f Santa Ana instructed their deputy to the ANC, Jose Francisco de Cordova, to engineer their participation in the new Central American polity separate from their colonial capital (San Salvador), with which they claimed to have inimical relations due to recent events. Pending official creation o f a federation, Cordova asked that Santa Ana depend directly on Guatemala.1 1 Sonsonates deputies at one point petitioned to become a separate state in the federation, although it eventually settled for joining El Salvador rather than Guatemala, the affiliation the rest o f the independent districts of the capital area chose. The city of Granada asked not to form part o f a Nicaraguan state with Leon, while the district o f Matagalpa decided to separate from district capital Granada and to unify with Leon. Matagalpa, Sebaco and Jinotegas
1 0 AGCA B Leg. 91, Exp. 2453, f. 1. The 17 July decree was read on 1 August and approved on 4 August 1823. 1 1 AGCA B Leg. 84, Exp. 2386, Instruccion que comunica el Ayuntamiento de la Villa de Santa Ana a sus diputados respectivos en el congreso nacional constituyente de estas provincias del Centro de America, Sres. Ldos. D. Marcelino Menendez y D. Jose Francisco Cordova. Santa Anas eighth point in the instructions was that an essential condition for the pact o f union was its exclusion from the political and military government of San Salvador. The ANC considered Cordovas representation on 30 August 1823.
347
electors voted to accept Leon as capital because it suited national prosperity to conserve the unity and integrity o f the province o f Nicaragua. 12 One deputy introduced a motion to discuss whether to create a state called Los Altos essentially, Guatemalas highland territory made up o f the regions that had separated in 1821-1823: Quezaltenango, Suchitepequez, Solola and Totonicapan.1 3 In the early days, then, it was not clear what the makeup o f the Salvadoran, Guatemalan, and Nicaraguan states would be. What was clear was that the acquiescence, or even the positive participation, o f the new federations principal cities and even the smaller towns encouraged to express their opinions by the model o f politics worked out after independence Central Americas pueblos would be required for the new compact of states to come into being. We will never know what the deputies would have decided had they been given sufficient time to evaluate each request and respond to it. When it became clear by December 1823 that the capitals o f the former intendancies o f San Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras had convened state legislatures and would form state governments before the ANC could make an official determination on the composition o f the republic, the congress quickly moved to provide general outlines for the nascent states to follow.
1 2 AGCA B Leg. 91, Exp. 2455, f. 16 and Leg. 84, Exp. 2385, No. 2, Matagalpa, 4 Sept. 1823. Granada's representatives Benito Rosales and Manuel Mendoza wrote, Pedimos que en la distribucion en Ios estados federados que se ha de hacer en la constitucion que se esta formando, se cuente a Granada con los partidos que se tenga por conveniente unirle, por un Estado separado del de Leon, Guatemala 21 September 1823. The ANC sent the request to the Constitution Commission the next day. The district's decision was not absolute. Conditions placed on the change o f allegiance included: forgetting past affiliation with Granada; freedom to sell liquor (aguardiente); Leons participation in the ANC and a Central American federation; and that the mayor of Matagalpa (cabeza de partido) excercise as governor (jefe politico subaltemo) since creation o f a new post might serve as the origin o f dissension. 1 3 AGCA B1 Legajo 91, Expediente 2472, f 8. No date or signature.
348
Only after it had no choice did the ANC decree that each province should respect its former limits. Yet, even with this constraint, the ANC stated explicitly that the appropriate districts (partidos) participate in a governing council (junta gubemativa ) in preparation for each provincial congress. In other words, the pueblos should have their wishes addressed in the formation of any state in order for that new state to be legitimate. Provincial capitals should not lay claim to intendancies or larger territories by fiat. Further, to defuse any tension that might result from accepting the intendancies or bishoprics as bases for states, the congress allowed for individual districts to respond to local circumstances and general utility, without doing violence to another partido or directly harming the state. This response extended the possibility that a partido could join a different state on its border (que sea limitrofe). 14 In other words, the ANC underlined its willingness to permit changes to colonial borders and territorial organization in the process of creating states and allowing the smallest political units, partidos, which were essentially regional towns and their satellites, to choose the state of their allegiance. Once again, the ANC recognized the political sovereignty o f the pueblos and their right to voluntary association. The composition o f the individual states o f the federation, then, was an important question whose resolution required both federal and state intervention. As the provincial congresses met in 1824, the ANC was tom between a desire to satisfy local needs and the practical requirements o f building a viable federation. In late May
1 4 AGCA B Leg. 91, Exp. 2458, ff. 14, 31 December 1823. Sent to Constitution Commission, 1 January 1824.
349
1824, the congress published a report on the bases for the constitution that explained that since States were the great moral bodies that compose the nation, the legislative centers that reproduce in different points the constitutive principles o f the republic and generate and direct the internal life o f society.. .it matters for order and interior tranquility, not to open an ample road to premature requests, and not to permit the dismemberment or inopportune division into small and weak portions, nor union among incoherent pueblos and territories. However, the same document also defended the advantages o f small states. Such benefits included the ability o f each state to legislate good and practical laws for its specific inhabitants, an important element given Central Americas heterogeneity o f population in terms o f ethnicity, culture, wealth, morality and education (ilustracion ). Small, however, was a relative term, as the congress determined that the basis for a state would be a minimum o f 100,000 inhabitants and an area with contiguous terrain. Furthermore, the ANC held that any territory that sought to divide into more than one state was supposed to leave an equal capacity in both parts to sustain one.1 5 It is thus likely that the sizes o f the states that the ANC might have put together would not have differed significantly from those formed from the colonial jurisdictions. What might well have differed was the territories included in each polity and the internal divisions o f districts, and, hence, power. Although circumstances forced the ANC to operate on the principle that preferred acceptable colonial divisions but to permit adjustments that could defuse tension or be otherwise justified, it nonetheless managed to take steps to provide for
350
change, at least in the future. Chiapas was invited to form a sixth state o f the Federation whenever it was prepared to do so.16 Similarly, although the ANC determined to keep the highland territories within the state o f Guatemala, it allowed for a study to determine if the territory met population, wealth and education (ilustracion) criteria to form a separate state. A decade later, the state o f Los Altos briefly existed, before being taken forcibly back into Guatemala (1838-1839).17 Other changes were immediate. Due to the Nicaraguan civil war, the ANC authorized the state o f Honduras to temporarily incorporate the Nicaraguan district o f Segovia (1824-1826).18 Since Mexico disputed the Soconusco region, both countries agreed that the district would remain under the government o f its three city councils until a final solution was reached.19 Mexico annexed the territory in 1842 on the grounds that the independent city governments gave safe-haven to plotting political exiles and bandits.20
1 5 Informe Sobre la Constitucion leido en la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente el 23 de mayo de 1824, reprinted in Carmelo Saenz de Santa Maria, El proceso ideologico-institucional. Revista de Indias (1978): 260, 279. 16 AGCA B7.25, Legajo 113, Expediente 2952, ANC, Sesiones Secretas, 18 September 1824. Having read communications from Ciudad Real de Chiapas o f 24 and 14 September, informing that the district had voted to join Mexico over joining the Central American Federation, the ANC determined not to act but to seek input from the executive branch. Articles 5-6 o f the Federal Constitution o f 1824 stated that the Republic would comprise the former Kingdom o f Guatemala, with the exception o f Chiapas which would become a state o f the federation when it freely joined. '' AGCA B1 Legajo 4125, Expediente 92804, ff. 7-8v. Decree, 11 May 1824, Article 16. See Arturo Taracena Tarriola, Invencidn Criolla. Sueno Ladino, Pesadilla Indigena: Los Altos de Guatemala, de Region a Estado. 1740-1850 (Antigua, Guatemala: CIRMA, 1997). 1 8 See Appendix R8. 1 9 The fascinating story o f this districts final annexation by Mexico in 1842, over Guatemalan protests, can be read in an anonymous pamphlet, Soconusco, territorio de Centro-America ocupado militarmente de orden delgobinero mexicano (Guatemala, Imprenta de la Paz, 1842). Until Mexicos takeover, the territory functioned as a staging ground for banditry and political plotting, for exiles from both countries found that none o f the city governments would cooperate to bring them to justice in either country. In 1832, Pedro Jose Valenzuela, Guatemalan Secretary o f State reported on how Manuel jose Arce, exiled in 1829, tried to use Soconusco as a staging ground for his return. P. J. Valenzuela, Memoria presentada al Congreso Federal de Centro America, al comenzar sus sesiones ordinarias del ano de 1832. Por Pedro
351
Despite these good intentions, by 11 May 1824 the ANC decreed that congresses would be allowed in Guatemala, San Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica, paving the way for the establishment o f a federation composed o f these, and only these, states.21 A few changes were achieved, however. In 1825, Honduras wrested control o f the port o f Trujillo and fortress of Omoa, both o f which had been considered part o f Honduran territory for most o f the colonial period, from the government of Guatemala.22 The only region within the Federation to withdraw permanently from one state to annex to another was Sonsonate. This former alcaldia mayor opted in 1823-1824 to join the state o f El Salvador rather than that o f Guatemala, despite (or perhaps because of) a 300-year history as an indirect satellite o f Guatemala City. The manner o f the switch is worth examining, for it shows the mix o f democratic and undemocratic procedures that influenced politics in the period, and, in this case, sealed the union of Sonsonate with El Salvador. On 23 November 1823, the town of Sonsonate pronounced for annexation to El Salvador, and invited the pueblos that formed the previous alcaldia mayor to do so as well. A majority o f the towns, including Ahuachapan, ratified the vote on 22 December. On the same date the El Salvador congress also ratified the aggregation. This vote was not the end of the matter, however. Ahuachapan determined to use the
Jose Valenzuela, secretario provisional del Estado y del despacho de guerra y marina (Guatemala: Imprenta Nueva, 1832). 20 Anonymous, Soconusco, territorio de Centro-America ocupado militarmente de orden del gobiemo mexicano (Guatemala: Imprenta de la Paz, 1842). The pamphlet contains interesting primary sources. 2 1 AGCA B1 Legajo 4125, Expediente 92804, ff. 7-8v. ANC, Decree, 11 May 1824, Article 1. The congress did not even have maps of the Kingdom o f Guatemala in its possession until June o f that same year. AGCA B1 Legajo 84, Expediente 2388, f. 4v. Session of 17 June 1824.
352
occasion to seek to reinvigorate a 1795 instruction to make it the cabecera o f a small district, rather than to enter into a compact with El Salvador as a part o f the district o f Sonsonate. By early 1824, with Guatemala objecting to the shift in Sonsonates alliance, the question had reached the ANC, which instructed the parishes to elect representatives to vote on whether to join Guatemala or El Salvador. After the local referendum favored El Salvador, on 5 March 1824, the ANC formally ratified Sonsonates aggregation to that state, an event recognized in the Salvadoran constitution o f 1824, which created o f the department o f Sonsonate. Guatemala accepted the loss o f Sonsonate philosophically, and had included in its 1825 constitution the possibility that the district would join another state, although the constitution listed the district as part o f Guatemalan territory.23 Ahuachapans bid for county status was denied. It remained a district in the department o f Sonsonate until 1869, when the Salvadoran legislature created the Department o f Ahuachapan.24 It bears mention here that the rule o f law was not the only glue that bonded Sonsonate to El Salvador. While legislation formalized the decision, this voluntary annexation began with and was cemented by the marriage o f Pedro Jose de Arcea
22 AGCA B 91-2473, ff. 10-12 (Guatemala), 3 and 5 January 1824. Both were included as territories in the 1825 Honduran Constitution. 23 Constitution o f Guatemala, 1825, Title 1, Section 3, Articles 35 and 36. *4 Ricardo Gallardo, Las Constituciones de El Salvador Vol. 14, Las Constituciones Hispanoamericanas , ed. Manuel Fraga Iribame (Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispanica, 1961) pp. 494-505. Ahuachapan became capital o f a distrito in Sonsonate in 1869, with the disputed 4 villages once again under its direct authority (Atiquizaya, Ataco, Tacuba, Apaneca). Once part o f the state o f El Salvador, the Sonsonate department cabecera changed with political circumstances, moving from Sonsonate briefly in 1835 to Ahuachapan and then spending twenty years in Santa Ana. In 1855, the Salvador legislature decreed the division o f the department into two, Santa Ana and Sonsonate, with the cabecera o f each to be in the town after which the department was named. The law o f 22 May 1835 establishing Santa Ana as capital o f the Sonsonate district can be found in Isidoro Meneudez, Recopilacion de las Leyes del Salvador en
353
member o f one of San Salvadors leading families and brother to a Federation presidentto the daughter o f one o f Sonsonates principal families, the Rascons, in 1821,25 A decade after moving to Sonsonate, Arce was elected to the city council, a signal o f full integration into local political life.26 A second wedding, between Eugenio Rascon and Maria Ana Escolan y Delgado, niece o f the bishop of San Salvador, Jose Matias Delgado, sealed the political and social union of the two cities.27 The Rascon and Arce families had exercised political influence through their respective city councils and continued to do so while lending their sons to state and national legislatures and executive offices. The political choice made by Sonsonates leading family pre-dated the legal confirmation o f the move, and underlines that the legal system worked best when it echoed the actual goals o f those with power. Although there were conflicts between San Salvador and Sonsonate over the first few decades, the elite union that accompanied the democratic annexation helped smooth them over. If Sonsonates allegiance was tom when invaded by Guatemalan or Salvadoran troops who pursued each other across its border territory, no permanent rupture followed. In other cases in which political votes did not produce the same permanent cohesion, we
Centro-America, 1821-1855 (Guatemala: Imprenta de L. Luna, 1855), Book 4, Title 1, Law 3, p. 180. The 1855 division of 14 February is in Book 4, Title 1, Law 8, p. 181. 25 Vicente Filisola, La Cooperation de Mexico en la Independencia de Centro America, Vol. XXXV, in the series Documentos Ineditos o muy Raros Para la Historia de Mexico, (Mexico, 1911), p. 50. Filisola does not record the name o f the bride. 26 Pedro Jose de Arce was brother to Manuel Jose de Arce, president o f the Central American Federation (1826-1829). Pedro served on the Sonsonate town council from 1834-1835, and had been their depositary o f funds in 1832. He was also governor o f Sonsonate province in 1824, 1833, 1840, 1842, and 1848. Finally, he served as interim chief o f state (Jefe Provisional) in El Salvador in 1841 (See Appendix M and Marure, Efemerides, p. 137) 2' Filisola, La Cooperation de Mexico en la Independencia de Centro America, pp. 50-100.
354
can only wonder if hostile behind-the-scenes relations between elites prevented political union. Sonsonates successful and legal switch o f states was, as noted, unique within the Central American experience. Yet it demonstrates the important principle that local leaders, as well as the deputies that had taken on the mantle o f deciding the political shape o f independent Central America both believed in the sovereignty o f the city. That is, there was widespread support for the self-definition o f a pueblo , or community, with political rights at the level o f the colonial city district. The spirit that had conceived o f and implemented an isthmus-wide referendum o f 1821-1822 was still active, and the new states were conceived o f as a composite o f sovereign pueblos united under one law. What was the upshot o f the forced conclusion o f the ANCs consideration of local and regional petitions during the formation o f states within the Federation? One can argue that it was a success, since the external borders agreed upon in 1825 endured.28 Reasons for this success was achieved through participation o f the gamut o f small and large pueblos in the recognition o f state authority is explored below. Yet the cost o f this consolidation was extremely high. By failing to heed demands o f towns as important as Quezaltenango (Guatemala) Granada (Nicaragua) and Santa Ana (El Salvador) in the organization o f states, the ANC simply passed on the problem o f internal tension and conflict to them. Such tensions contributed to two decades of highly disruptive and violent politics and military engagements that resulted in the dissolution o f the federation.
355
One highly visible aspect o f the instability fostered by the accelerated acceptance o f provinces as states was a lack o f agreed-upon state capitals and failure to negotiate the federal seat. Table 7.1: Capitals, Central America, 1825-1842 City Years State 1825-February 1834 Guatemala City Federation February-June 1834 Sonsonate Federation San Salvador June 1834-1839(1836-1839, DF) Federation Guatemala 1825-1826; April 1838-July 1838 Antigua Guatemala September 1826 S. Martin Jilotepeque Guatemala Quezaltenango Guatemala September-October 1826 1827Guatemala Guatemala Jocotenango Guatemala April 1830 (earthquake) 1825-1832 San Salvador El Salvador October 1832 San Vicente El Salvador 1839? San Salvador El Salvador 1824-1831 Tegucigalpa & Honduras Comayagua 1831-1849 Comayaguga Honduras 1849-18??; 1880Tegucigalpa Honduras 1825?-1845 Leon Nicaragua 1845 Masaya Nicaragua 1845Managua Nicaragua 1826San Jose Costa Rica 1838-1839 Quezaltenango Los Altos Source: Marure, Efemerides, passim; Munro, The Five Republics o f Central America, p. 81. The disruption experienced in hosting the federal capital led to the fall o f two state governments (Guatemala, 1826; El Salvador, 1832), the murder o f one vicepresident (Cirilo Flores of Guatemala), and the beginnings of a tradition o f the federal government using its host country as a seat to attack hostile or separatist governments with in the federation. In part due to the presence o f the federal capital, neither
:s After Segovia was reabsorbed into Nicaragua in 1826, the only major alteration o f state territory was
356
Guatemala nor El Salvador had a stable seat for its state authorities until the late 1830s. In the other three states, competition between principal city pairs Comayagua and Tegucigalpa (Honduras); Granada and Leon (Nicaragua); and San Jose and Cartago (Costa Rica)over issues relating to government location led to internal strife, and at times, military engagement. Tegucigalpa and Comayagua, for example, experimented with dividing state authorities between the two cities, an experiment that ended in 1831 with Comayaguas assumption o f the role o f capital until 1849, when Tegucigalpas elites wrested the government back to their city.29 Until elites agreed to work together in the aftermath o f indigenous and mulatto revolts in the 1830s, or to counter foreign influence or invasion, it was extremely hard for governments to consolidate their hold on power and extend their authority. The problem o f maintaining a republic made up of states, whose politics were decided by republics o f cities, was made manifest. The period o f capitals on horseback was marked by internal violence within states and the beginning o f alliances between compatible elite groups across state lines to oppose common foes including the federal government. A sketch o f the principal
the 1838-1839 independence o f Los Altos from the state of Guatemala. 29 See Appendix R for examples o f changes in political divisions in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and the Federation between 1825 and 1850. In Febuary 1835, San Salvador and some of its pueblos were constituted into an official federal district, enlarged in 1836 to include the distrilo o f Zacatecoluca, and ended in 1839 when the Salvadoran legislature reincorporated the territory back into their state. El Salvador moved its capital from San Salvador to San Vicente (1832) Marure, Efemerides, pp. 79, 86. Regarding the situation o f Comayagua and Tegucigalpa, Jefe de Estado Jose Santos del Valle in 1831 ended the alternation agreed upon on 29 August 1824 in the constituent assembly held in Cedros, and President Juan Lindo decreed Tegucigalpa capital on 22 June 1849, but it was not until 1880 that this city remained the permanent home o f the Honduran Government. See: http://www.hondudata.com/enciclopedia/enciclonew/honduras/presidentes/-juanlindo.htmand Josesantosdelvalle.htm, http://www.hondudata.com/enciclopedia/enciclonew/honduras/mapas/municipios/Franciscomorazan/tegus/decreto 11 ,htm
357
conflicts provides a sense of the general dynamic o f resolving disputes through military invasion (Table 7.2). Table 7.2: Principal Civil Wars, 1825-1842
Yrs 1826 Authorities Involved Federadon-Guatemala (Fed uses Salvadoran troops) Guatemala-EI Salvador Ostensible Cause Guatemala government disagrees with federal authorities (Arce) Salvadoran erection o f a separate bishopric Seditious movement led by Juan Arguello Retaliation for 1826 ouster o f Salvadoran gvt. by fed. Arce/Federation oust liberal government in Honduras Results Fight or arrest o f Guatemalan gov ernment dissolution o f congress; Fed. convocation o f new congress Salvador refusal to recognize federation; various military battles in Salvadoran territory 3 years o f civil war Various battles in which El Salvador wins Joined with El Salvador and Nicaragua to defeat Fed. (Arce); rize o f Fco. Morazan; change of federal government Defeat o f Guzman et al. Honduras & Nic. support fed.; Fed changes Sal. Gvt. Victory o f state Granada & Leon unite to beat dissident Masaya, Managua, Matagalpa Defeated Defeated Federation wins
18271829 18271830 1827
Nicaragua El Salvador-Federation (Fed uses Guate. troops) Federation-Honduras
1827
1832 1832 1832 1833 1833 1834 1834 1835 18361838 1838 18391840 18381839 1842
Omoa-Federation (Fed. uses Guate. troops) Federation-El Salvador Honduras Nicaragua El Salvador Nicaragua Federation-Salvador (Fed=Guate, Ho, Nic) Costa Rica Guatemala Costa Rica Nicaragua & HondurasSalvador Guatemala-Los Altos
Ramon Guzman and morenos oppose fed. Refusal to host fed. Capital leads to Morazan attack. V. Dominguez vs. State 3 towns denounce chief o f state D. Herrera Indian revolt (Aquino) vs. state Granada & Metapan vs. Gvt Morazans decision to sack the Salvador government Cartago, Alajuela, Heredia vs State/San Jose (Capital) Popular classes resist liberal reforms, esp. judicial; Elected president ousted Oppose federation (capital is S. Salavdor) Highland districts separate from Guatemalas government S. Jose, Alajuela & Heredia oppose attempt by returned Morazan to reestablish fed.
Costa Rica-Federation
Ouster o f liberal gvt .(Galvez); first caudillo (Carrera), non-elite origin Usurper controls until 1842 Many battles; El Sal joins vs. fed; Morazan ousted; practical end of federal government. Indians rebel vs. new gvt; Conservative Guatemala (Carrera) brings back to state Morazan eventually ousted, followed and killed when found.
Source: Marure, Efemerides, passim.
358
This conflictive dynamic indirectly explains some o f the consolidation o f some form of state authority. By its interventionist methods, the federal government pushed elites within states to unite to oppose federal invasion. The federal authorities under the presidencies o f Manuel Jose Arce (1825-1829) and Francisco Morazan (1829-1838) proved too quick to intervene in state politics, challenging and replacing state governments in Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala when it seemed as if state executive or legislative branches diverged from federal policy. Since a federal army made up o f soldiers from all parts o f the territory was never assembled, invasions by the federation often resembled invasions the federations state o f residence (Guatemala or El Salvador), exacerbating tensions between states. In response to federal bullying, state authorities looked to their neighbors to ally to take on the juggernaut, attempt an alternate form o f federation, or resist separatist movements by principal cities with improper political alliance. Thus when the federation waged separate campaigns against the Salvadoran and Honduran governments in 1827, these two states joined with Nicaragua to defeat the troops o f Manuel Jose A rce.30 Elites in each of these states had to put aside local quarrels if they were to succeed in ousting external intervention. Yet, despite the alliances forged between state legislatures and executives, the dynamic of the independence period remained very much alive, with the principal cities
30 See Woodward, Rafael Carrera and the Emergence o f the Republic o f Guatemala, Chapter 2, Conservatives and Liberals, 1821-1837 for a thorough, clear narrative o f the early years o f federal rule. Although Woodward perhaps relies too strongly on the idea of two opposing political parties, he nonetheless presents a remarkably readable dissection of the series o f wars and battles that divided leaders and scarred the Central American countryside in this period.
359
continuing to act as if they had the sovereign right to withdraw from their states if they strongly disagreed with government policy. Municipal districts, in fact, remained at the heart of the political ideology o f the state-formation process as well. The state legislatures meeting for the first time in 1824-1826 faced the same linguistic and philosophical conundrum as the ANC: how to represent and define the source o f their sovereignty. The language most chose indicates that, in the aftermath o f the municipal independence, they still considered sovereignty to reside in the pueblos, or towns, o f their districts. El Salvadors congress in 1824 still claimed to be the representatives of the pueblos included in the Intendancy o f San Salvador and Alcaldia Mayor of Sonsonate, met in a Constituent Congress.... That is, the state congressmen represented a myriad of small, sovereign cities or districts that voluntarily joined the state. The cities themselves continued to behave as if they retained sovereignty. As part o f their political tasks, the municipalidades o f the Central American federation promulgated laws and announced constitutions, but also met in the often-tricky role of determining a regions allegiance in the many civil wars that broke out in post independence Central America. The years o f 1826-1827 were not typical, in that they reflected numerous political changes that led to a civil war that divided, and effectively ended republican federal rule for three years. However, a look at discussions in regional city councils for this year shows the breadth o f the political decision-making each city council retained and the challenges central governments faced in reducing municipal autonomy.
360
In Tegucigalpa, in January 1826, the city council received the new state constitution o f Honduras and ordered its publication. By April o f the same year, the council deliberated whether to arrest known disturbers o f order who were said to be holding meetings. In August, the city council wrote its state capital to protest the circulation o f debased currency, a problem rendered more acute because Tegucigalpa was a mining center, and to urge the establishment o f an official mint there. On 4 November, when news o f the assassination o f the vice president o f Guatemala reached the town, aldermen expressed concern that the fragile federation was likely to topple and urged the governor to expedite travel o f their delegates to the Honduran election of president of the republic, in order to prevent the type o f bloodbath that had divided Nicaragua. The following days, these fears seemed well grounded as a messenger brought news o f an attempted assassination o f the president of Honduras. The city responded with a letter to the president that said Tegucigalpa and its residents were at his command and would support his orders and authority within the actual system. By November 7, the city agreed to the president's request to send 50 unarmed men to him in Comayagua from their militia (cuerpos civicos). On 27 November, the city and governor resolved to ask the local priests to exhort the populace (el pueblo) to respect the government and its authorities.31 In this instance, Tegucigalpa cooperated with Honduran state authorities, but note that the city fathers presumed that they had the right to decide where to place their allegiance and how much aid they would proffer to
3 1 AMT (Tegucigalpa), Caja, Actas de Cabildo, 1826, 28 January, 26 A pril, 4 August & 3 November 1826.
361
state government agents. If officially Tegucigalpas municipales served a city within a state, in fact, they served the city first and the state only after deliberation. Tegucigalpa was not alone in juggling the responsibility o f responding to political tensions and uncertainties. Such a tight-wire act was common to the dozen traditionally powerful towns with close to a 300-year legacy o f representation o f local interests within the confines o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala, and even within the Spanish empire. When two such powerhouses competed for political control o f new states, as was the case with Leon and Granada in Nicaragua, bitter civil war could result. Yet it is important to point out that this was not the only model that inter-city clashes followed. Tegucigalpa, long-time rival o f Comayagua, preferred to negotiate a deal by which the capital o f Honduras would alternate between the two principal towns. For places like Sonsonate, which had opted during the first days o f the first Central American constituent assembly to join the state o f El Salvador, the juggling was particularly acute, as loyalties remained divided between the new capital, San Salvador, and the old, Guatemala City. In 1827, the Sonsonate city council was called upon to cope with conflict. On 8 May 1827, the acting mayorwho replaced not only the elected mayor, who had fled the town, but also the other aldermen who should have assumed the postdrafted a letter to assure the acting chief o f El Salvador o f the town's loyalty, and to seek protection against its error in siding with another faction. A month went by before the council met again, and opened a response from the state capital forgiving their sins and welcoming them into the new government. A celebration, surely tinged with relief, accompanied the communication o f this missive to the
362
neighboring pueblos o f the department. In this case, as in others o f its ilk, a change of municipales to a group sympathetic to a new state government often accompanied an official plea, on behalf o f a town and its neighbors, for forgiveness for supporting the enemies o f a winning faction.32 The town was less fortunate in 1834-1835, when alliance with the wrong side (presumably Francisco Morazan who had established Sonsonate as the Federal capital) led the Salvadoran government to move the department capital away from Sonsonate to Santa Ana; it would be 20 years before the town regained its position as provincial capital.33 Perhaps Sonsonates correspondence with the municipalidades of San Vicente and San Miguel made the state capital nervous, even though Sonsonate had written to congratulate the new state assembly on its installation. After all, San Miguel had responded to Sonsonates invitation to respect constitutional order with an indication that it, in turn, had written to several municipalidades in Honduras, suggesting that the Salvadoran government might well have to face the possibility that its own towns supported the federation, and its Honduran chief.34 As these examples underline, although operating within state systems, the cities o f Central America continued to operate as politically sovereign entities, using the town council to deliberate on matters o f state and to undertake alliances without seeking state sanction first. The divisive behavior of the elite cities was particularly evident in 1838-
32 AMS, Caja Actas Municipales, 1821-9, Libro de Actas, 1827, Sessions o f 8 May, 2 June 1827. j3 Menendez, Recopilacion de las leyes..., Book 1, Title 4, Law 3, p. 176 M AMS, Caja Municipalidad, 1830-9; Correspondence, 1834-1836, p. 25. 31 August 1834, Alcalde de San Miguel al de Sonsonate. On 1 August, Sonsonate had been informed by M. Cubar that Salvadoran troops had secured Izalco from the federation.
363
1839, when Antigua withdrew from Guatemala, was followed by Chiquimula, Sacatepequez and Verapaz, and set up its own government; Quezaltenango led nearby provinces to form a separate state; and Tegucigalpa disowned the state o f Honduras until it withdrew from the federation.35 By the time constituent assemblies convened in each o f the five states o f the ailing federation in 1838-1841 to draft new constitutions, it was clear that the states would survive. With the track record o f two decades o f civil war behind them, the new legislatures were no longer unanimous in a political ideology that celebrated and protected municipal sovereignty. Almost twenty years after the first political experiment in republican government had taken shape, a shift had begun to occur in political understanding, presumably the result o f the failure o f a model that allowed towns significant political freedom to function. Legislators went from representing cities as sovereign to favoring sovereignty of the state and its government. The 1841 Salvadoran Constitution was introduced by the representatives o f the singular Salvadoran pueblo ...36 Honduras constitutions o f 1825 and 1839 reflected the same linguistic and conceptual shift, with representatives o f the pueblos (1825) being replaced by representatives o f the pueblo (1839).37 This shift reflected the fact that, by 1839, the states o f Central America had declared themselves sovereign and separate from the federation, even though it would be an additional decade before they officially assumed the status o f independent republics. Even in 1839, however, the shift reflected
35 See Marure, Efemerides, pp. 99-120. j6 Preamble, Constitution o f the State (El Salvador), 1824; Preamble, Constitution o f El Salvador, 1841.
364
a changing rather than a changed ideology. The transfer o f sovereignty from city to state was not absolute. Guatemalas legislators, in the constitution of 1825 as well as its reform in 1839, were representatives o f the State, although they acted in use o f the powers conferred on us by the pueblos .
to
If legislators in the early, optimistic years
had laid out a program o f consolidation that would move sovereignty from the cities to the states, the message required reinforcement in the main cities o f the isthmus in the late 1830s. The first conflicts experienced during the federal period, those discussed above, began as conflicts between elites, their cities, and either state or federal authorities.39 However, by the m id-1830s, a different sort o f political battle was shaping up. Under the watchful eye o f federal president Morazan, liberal governments throughout the isthmus used the decade o f relative calm between 1829 and 1837 to begin implementing the kinds o f reforms dreamed o f by the ANC in 1823. After almost ten years o f land expropriation, personal tax, loosening o f restrictions on marriage and divorce, and establishing a judicial system based on juries, the rural population of at least one state, Guatemala, had had enough. The indigenous and ladino populations of Guatemala, led by a charismatic young man named Rafael Carrera, rose up against the reformist government o f Mariano Galvez (1831-1838) and toppled it. They also brought the new state o f Los Altos, suffering from multiple Indian uprisings against similar taxes, back
3' Preamble, Constitution o f the State o f Honduras, 1825; Preamble, Constitution of the State of Honduras, 1839. 38 Preamble, Political Constitution of the State of Guatemala, 1825; Preamble, Decree 76, 5 December 1839. In Article 2 o f the 1825 Constitution, the legislators had stated, The pueblos of Guatemala, united in one sole corps, form the State.
365
into Guatemala (1839). Although a similar uprising in 1830s El Salvador had been crushed by the state, the tensions there favored a change to conservative rule in the 1830s. What had these forces been doing, while the elite cities divided states in the first decade o f self-government? The record suggests that through their behavior, city councils in the smaller towns followed a path designed to build states, rather than destroy them. The following section suggests a way to understand why, given the internal tensions and divisive civil wars fostered by the principal cities and towns, each state in fact consolidated in this period. This can be seen through an examination o f the government structures set up, as well as the activities o f the small towns that, unlike the bigger cities, reinforced their participation within a particular government. That is, having taken the top-down approach to understanding the tensions between and among elite groups in most o f Central America, we also consider the constitution o f the states of Central America through a model better described as bottom-up. Authorities in Countries and in the Countryside: the institutional framework Before considering how the cities and towns o f Central America participated in the process of state formation, it behooves us to consider the practical organization o f the states of the federation. In the bases for the 1824 federal constitution, the deputies o f the ANC imagined that the states would form a concert o f republics quite identical in the political maxims o f their structure.. .The States will thus be as homogeneous as
39 See Woodward, Rafael Carrera and the Republic o f Guatemala, for discussion o f the political ideologies supposedly at bay.
366
corresponds to pueblos that are always united and brothers.40 The republic of cities would give way to the republic o f states. As units o f one federation, the states of Central America indeed created similar territorial and gubernatorial structures. Each established a republican government with separate legislative, judicial and executive authorities. As noted above, territorial division was the work o f the legislature, which in each case respected the new federal terminology and divided its state into departments, which would be made up of districts ( distritos) that were further divided into municipalities (municipalidades ). Each department and distrito had its cabecera, or district capital, in which state governors and priests would reside, and district elections would be hosted (See Appendix R). Just as the territories had similar structures, so, too did the governments of the federation and states o f Central America, which divided power in the countryside, among towns, governors and priests. In post-colonial Central America, as Miles Wortman reminds us, at least one new republican institution sprang up for each colonial one:
40 Informe Sobre la Constitucion leido en ia ANC el 23 de mayo de 1824, reprinted in Carmelo Saenz de Santa Maria, El proceso ideologico-institucional, Revista de Indias (1978): 278.
367
Table 7.3: Institutions of Republican Central America, 1825-1850 Central Authorities State & provincial authorities Captain General (CG) Audiencia Intendant or Governor (Province) Governor (County) Alcalde Mayor or Corregidor Local authorities Central Authorities - t ....
.-'-
Royal appointment Royal appointment Royal appointment Royal appt. from local nomination (CG) Election/Purchase Popular Election Popular Election Popular Election Popular Election Popular election Executive Appt. Popular Election Popular Election Popular Election Executive Appt. Election
Cabildo/Ayuntamiento (Spanish City & Town) President (Federation) National Assembly (Fed Cong) Senate (Federation) National Judiciary (Federation) Supreme Political Chief (State) Political Chief or Corregidor (Department) Legislative Assembly (State) Legislative Council (State) State Judiciary (State) Civil Judges (District) Municipality (City, Town & Village)
State & provincial authorities
Local authorities
Sources: Wortman, Government and Society, Table 13.2, p. 239; Van Oss (1986); Constitucion de la Republica Federal de Centro-America, 1824. At the state and national levels, a new series of executive, judicial and legislative authorities took office through the novel means o f elections and attempted to revamp the Central American political system. The Spanish king and his Council o f the Indies had previously selected bureaucrats bom outside the region to serve as chief judicial, political and military officers. Under the federal system, a three-tiered indirect electoral process o f electoral councils made up o f local citizens elected American-bom and naturalized officials not only to administer their laws, but also to write them. Applying republican ideas o f universal citizenship, the congress granted suffrage to all
368
financially independent adult male heads o f household and made the town council an entirely elected body. Indians and mestizos, the vast majority o f Central Americas inhabitants, retained the legal right granted under the Spanish constitution to elect their local and national officials as any other community. More significantly, the new Central American republic and its constituent states codified the enfranchisement o f the casta and black communities o f the isthmus, rejecting once and for all any definition o f citizenship predicated on continent of origin.41 Even when several states, including Guatemala, moved to provide separate legislation and protections for Indian communities by the 1830s, their official status and rights o f citizens was not revoked.42 Despite the possibilities for fraud and election hijacking in a country with a high illiteracy rate, it appears that elections regularly took place in the over two hundred
4 1 See Federal Constitution , 1824, Title 1, Section 2, Article 13. The Federations 1835 constitution granted citizenship to native-born or naturalized residents over 18 years o f age or married, on the condition that they exercised a useful profession or had known means o f subsistence. Reformas a la Constitucion Federal de Centroamerica, 1835, Title 2, Section 2, Article 14. Honduras state constitution did not address questions o f citizenship. These liberal definitions of citizenship based solely on place of birth, and, if necessary, naturalization, endured until the 1860s. In 1864, El Salvador limited the vote to literate or property-holding male heads o f household 21 years o f age or older. A seminary graduate (que obtengan grado literario) or married man 18 or older could also vote. Constitucion de El Salvador, 1864, Title 3, Articles 7 and 8. That a guatemalteco needed a profession, office or property which prvides means of independent subsistence was a provision continued into the 1850s. Constitucion de la Republica de Guatemala, 1851, Art. 1. 42 See article 3, Decree 76, 14 December 1839, Asamblea Constituyente de Guatemala. This decree reiterates that All those bom in Guatemala or naturalized there, according to laws establsiehd or to be established by the Constitution, are guatemaltecos," (Article 1) but then calls for protection of Indian communities but does not abolish Indian citizenship. See also the discussion regarding establishing a government ministry and commission to protect Indian communities. AGCA C l Legajo 56, Expediente 1565, July-August 1839, Discussion and Decree 37, 16 August 1839. Some o f the provisions, including the insistence that government decrees be translated into indigenous tongues and that the indigenous benefit from a translator when dealing with the government, were positive and sensible. Others, regarding reestablishment o f labor requirements, were not.
369
towns o f independent Central America, and vastly increased the number and variety o f adult males exercising at least passive voting rights.43 The republican electoral system reinforced the cohesion o f municipal communities, whose electoral councils (Juntas) selected not only local government but also the men who would choose state and national authorities. It also reinforced the distinctions between district and departmental capitals (cabeceras) and their constituent villages. Following a system similar to that o f the Spanish Constitution, citizens o f the Central American federation elected authorities in an indirect system. Individuals elected members o f parish popular councils (juntas populares), who in turn elected their district (partido ) representatives. The partido electors would meet in their cabecera to elect departmental electors who would meet in a junta to elect federal and state authorities. In most cases, it appears that electors were willing and able to make the trip to their cabeceras to cast their votes.44 However, in times o f political turmoil, towns within a district might find it impolitic to send representatives to a cabecera they had not supported during a conflict. The governor o f Chiquimula (Guatemala), for example, reported in 1829 that the village of Mongoi distinguished for its love o f the system o f liberty feared to send its electors to district cabecera Mita, o f contrary (opinion) in the recent civil war. Congress unsympathetically pointed out that the electoral juntas of
43 Xiomara Avendaiio Rojas, Procesos Electorates y Close Politica en la Federacion de Centroamerica, 1810-1840, UUnpublished doctoral dissertation. Mexico (DF), Colegio de Mexico, 1994. 44 See AGCA C l Legajo 36, Expedientes 897, 898, 904 and 905 for 1824 Guatemalan state elections; Legajo 117, Expedientes 3456 for 1829 state president and vice-presidential elections, and Legajo 38, Expediente 493, and Legajo 36, Expediente 941 for 1839 and 1840 congressional elections.
370
Guatemala and Quezaltenango had met, despite similar political schisms within their districts, and instructed him to hold his elections in the designated areas.45 The importance o f the municipal body, and the states need o f its cooperation, led to the continuation o f a system o f privileges and honors for obedient or responsive towns while in times o f political turmoil, a state could move the departmental capital to punish a disloyal cabecera, depriving a town of significant importance.46 The trend began with the ANC, and was picked up as state legislatures throughout Central America promoted their villages to towns, and their towns to cities, for services to the current cause (see Table 7.4). The ANC and subsequent federal and state governments offered special subsidies or tariff reductions to port towns in attempts to increase trade. Just as deputies to the Spanish Cortes had argued for funds and reduced tariffs to revive ports, in the ANC the Honduran deputies (Lindo, Marquez, and Herrera) proposed developing the Pacific port o f Dolores (in Danli), while 14 Guatemalan deputies championed Iztapa, a port on the Pacific coast of the province o f Escuintla (site o f present-day port o f San Jose).47 The port cities were the gateway to increased trade with European, South American and North American traders who plied the Pacific coast, and thus deserving o f special encouragement.
45 AGCA C l Legajo 117, Expediente 3449. Jefe Departamental de Chiquimula, Mariano Trabanino, al Congreso de Guatemala 2 July 1829. The Congress considered and rejected the request on August 6. 46 In 1835, the state of El Salvador moved the capital of the department of Sonsonate to Santa Ana. Menendez, Recopilacion de las leyes.... Book 1, Title 4, Law 3, p. 176 4' The Guatemalan port petition can be read in AGCA B1 Legajo 91, Expediente 2473, ff. 10-12. It called for a voluntary subscription o f landowners and merchants to fund the rehabilitation o f the port by the Consulado de Comercio, and a 10 year reduction in duties.
371
Tab e 7.4: Promotions of Communities When Promoted Promoted By Whom From to Metapan (ES) Pueblo ANC 1823 Villa Pueblo Ahuachapan (ES) ANC 1823 Villa Pueblo ANC 1823 Zacatecoluca (ES) Villa Yscasu (CR) Pueblo 1824 ANC Villa Pueblo 1824 Masaya (N) ANC Villa 1827 Usulutan (ES) Pueblo El Salvador Leg. Villa Pueblo El Sal Leg. (?) 1831 Chalatenango (ES) Villa Pueblo El Salvador Leg. 1836 Suchitoto (ES) Villa 1837 Nicaragua Leg. Nicoya (N) Pueblo Villa 1847 Pueblo El Salvador Leg. San Fernando (ES) Villa Pueblo Honduras Leg. 1849 Villa Comayaguela (H) 1824 ANC Villa Santa Ana (ES) Ciudad 1824 Villa ANC Sonsonate (ES) Ciudad 1825/9 Quezaltenango (G) Pueblo Guatemala Leg. Ciudad Pueblo 1829 Ciudad Guatemala Leg. Totonicapan (G) 1831 Pueblo Guatemala Leg. Ciudad Flores (G) Ciudad Guatemala Leg. 1833 Pueblo Ciudad Salama (G) Nicaragua Leg. 1835 Villa Nicaragua (Rivas) Ciudad Honduras Leg. 1835 Pueblo Juticalpa (H) Ciudad Guatemala Leg. 1835 Amatitlan (G) Villa Ciudad 1836 Pueblo Costa Rica Leg. Ciudad Guanacaste (CR) El Salvador Leg 1846 Villa Ciudad Cojutepeque (ES) ANC -Asamblea Nacional Constituyente (Federation, 1823-1825), Leg-Legislature ES-E1 Salvador, H-Honduras, G-Guatemala, N-Nicaragua, CR-Costa Rica Community
Sources: Marure, Efemerides, pp. 36, 57, 64, 75, 87, 89, 99; Menendez, Recopilacion de las Leyes de El Salvador, pp. 176-177, note 5; Gallardo,Constituciones de El Salvador, p. 494; Larde y Larin, Recopilacion de Leyes relativas a la historia de los Municipios de El Salvador, pp. 58-60; Honduras, Asamblea Constituyente del Estado de, 1849 (1948). Decree: Comayaguela -Villa. Revista del Archivo y Biblioteca Nacionales de Honduras 26 (11 & 12): 509-510.
Equally, it could acknowledge similar levels o f importance o f district towns by rotation o f the governor through important towns in a district. When establishing the department of La Paz in El Salvador in 1839, the legislature decreed that the cabecera would be Zacatecoluca, but the governor would reside alternately in that town, Santiago Nunualco and Olocuilta.48 The state, with no manpower to deploy in the countryside, had to rely on city and governor to fulfill all the functions o f secular government.
372
Although this decision to depend on municipal authority to represent state and federation can be viewed in hindsight as an expression o f the weakness o f the new republican governments, at the same time it can be interpreted as a sign of continuity with the colonial bureaucratic system. As earlier chapters have shown, city authoritieswhether the full-fledged city councils of the Spanish and Creole cities, or the more reduced body of alcaldes and regidores o f Indian and some ladino pueblos had served as voice o f both people and Crown since the sixteenth century. The Independent Municipality: its organization and responsibilities Within this new republic o f states, the republic o f cities maintained important functions. That over two hundred municipalities received official voice in national politics confirmed and expanded systemic change in Central American government begun in the constitutional era and continued at independence. The time in which only around a dozen o f the isthmus most important towns and cities, populated by Spaniards and their descendants, had qualified for self-government through a locally-staffed town council (ayuntamiento ) was ended even if their overwhelming influence on state and national politics had not.49 Just as the Bourbons had worked to strengthen province and city at the same time in the interests of extending government to the dispersed settlements of its kingdoms, the Central American federation and its state governments followed a similar, and perhaps contradictory, policy. Adapting the laws o f the Spanish constitutional town council, the ANC opened municipal status to any town with as few as 300 inhabitants, immediately increasing the
4 8 Menendez, Recopilacion de las Leyes..., pp. 180-181, Book 1, Title 4, Law 6 (17 May 1839), Article 3.
373
number of self-governing communities by a factor o f ten.50 El Salvadors first constitution established that towns with 500 or more souls {almas) would retain their municipalities, as did Honduras.5 1 Guatemala authorized municipal status to places with 200 residents, insisting that both urban and rural communities be attended to (Title 8, Section 2, Articles 161-162). Where a population was too small, each state authorized municipalities to name an auxiliary mayor {alcalde auxiliar) to govern smaller populations. This non-elective position served much the same function as the colonial alcalde de la hermandad : representing justice and administration in the distant areas o f a municipal jurisdiction.52 In all states, all municipal posts continued to be elective. In the early years, the trend was to continue to expand such municipal government. In 1832, El Salvador lowered the number o f residents required to form a municipalidad to 200 souls.53 Whereas in the colonial system a hierarchy divided settlements with self-government on economic and social importance as well as ethnicity of residents, the constitutional system of Central America followed the Spanish constitutional model to use population to distinguish which authorized a
J9 See Chapters 1 and 2. 50The ANC decree o f 10 May 1824 determined the size o f the town council depending on population: less than 300, 300-500, and between 500-1000. Guatemala in 1825 and El Salvador in 1832 set the minimum population for a town council at 200 (Guatemala, No 60, 12 October 1825, Art. 16; El Salvador, 4 September 1832, Chap 2, Art. 51). The Spanish constitution system had set the minimum population requiring a council at 1000, a number too large for Central America (Article 310, Constitution Politica, 1812). In the colonial period, only Spanish towns had the right to a real town council (ayuntamiento) while Indian villages could have a comun del pueblo, whose elected justices only had functions as intermediaries between Indian residents and Spanish governors in tribute collection and incarceration of local lawbreakers. 5 1 El Salvador, Consitution o f 1824, Chap. 10, Art. 73; Honduras, Constitution o f 1825, Chap. 12, Art. 82. 52 Honduras, Constitution o f 1825, Chap. 12, Art. 83; Guatemala, Constitution o f 1825, Title VTII, Section 2, Article 163. 53 El Salvador, Decree, 4 September 1832, Art .51. In the 1824 Constitution, a village needed 500 souls (almas) to merit a municipalidad. El Salvador, Constitution, 1824, Chap. 10, Art. 73.
374
settlement to have a full city government. The changes that independence brought to the composition o f principal city councils are discussed at the end o f this chapter. Establishing municipal government was one thing. Ensuring that it was effective was another. The governor o f Verapaz reported to the Guatemalan congress in 1839 that there was only one ladino, Jose Cruz Lopez, in the Indian pueblos o f Cahabon and Lanquin who could read and speak Spanish. Over Cruz Lopez protests, the governor had named him judge and enjoined him to communicate decrees and orders from the government. But the unwilling judge reported back that the municipales o f the towns were inebriated, and had spent the funds they had collected for the war tax (subvencion de guerra) rather than turning it over to him.54 Not every community was ready for or desired the responsibility and honor o f a full-fledged local authority. Yet, through the 1830s, the official policy was to create a state in which most communities were self-governing, and repeated pushes were made to ensure that city councils took office. Municipal authority overall remained strong not simply because more city governments existed in Central America in the 1830s than the 1810s. City councils also retained undisputed charge o f the interior government of the towns, and, as in the Spanish colonial system, only an executively-appointed governor stood between them and their state and federal capitals. The reformed constitutional council retained its
54 AGCA Cl Legajo 38, Expediente 942, ff. 5-12. Gefe Politico Arriaga de Verapaz al Congreso de Gutemala, 24 April 1839. The congress was concerned that the districts election had been falsified, given that the town councilrs were drunken and did not understand Spanish.
375
authority as the principal secular institution in each town o f the republic.55 The popularly elected body o f the municipalidad or ayuntamiento constitucional56 continued to be in charge o f the political-economic government o f the pueblos."51 In practical terms, this meant that the council kept its traditional responsibilities: tax assignment and collection; administration of town lands (ejidos ) and marketplaces; administration o f justice and health; funding and supervision o f education and public works projects, such as road building, vaccination and water supply; maintenance o f prisons and hospitals, if any; and military recruitment. As in the past, control o f certain assets led to profit.58 In addition, the post-independence municipalitys responsibilities included maintenance o f a list o f citizens eligible to vote, insurance that debased coinage did not circulate, reports on vital statistics, and supervision o f local elections.59 In other words, if the theory o f citizenship was set out in state and national constitutions, the practice of citizenship was policed by the city and town councils o f Central America.
55 ANC Decree, 23 July 1823. 50 As under the Spanish constitutional system, derived from the colonial system, mayors and syndics continued to be elected annually while aldermen served for two years each, with half replaced in any given year. For a clear expression o f this mle, see AGCA C l, Leg. 56, Exp. 1569, ff. 39-47, Guatemala, Decree 50, 2 October 1839, Article 59. Between 1839 and 1845, and after 1847, the government of Guatemala reduced the ability to serve in councils to those who had already been municipales, but this restriction was the exception rather than the mle. See AGCA B 1 Leg. 708, Exp. 15677 for the 20 Sept. 1845 repeal o f the law, and Expediente 15678 for its reinstatement on 16 November 1847. 57 Constitution o f the State o f Guatemala, 1825, Title 8, Section 2, Article 169. 58 For example, the Guatemala City council members continued to have an unusually high share of ejido assignments. More than half of the Guatemala City ejido rentals in 1835 went to municipales and their relatives. Families that benefitted included: Salazar, Echeverria, Batres, Pinol, Samayoa, Lambur, Barberena, Bolanos, Quinones, Cordova, Valle, and Pavon. Families receiving access to these lands in 1840 included: Aycinena, Andrade, Dardon, Santa Cruz, Herrarte, Arrivillaga. See AGCA B Legajo 715 Expedientes 15976 (1835) and 16036(1840). 59 El Salvador, Decree, 4 September 1832; B Leg. 192, Exp 4152, Guatemala, Decree 67, 9 November 1825 (Reglamento para el Gobiemo de los Departamentos); AGCA C l, Leg. 56, Exp. 1569, ff. 39-47, Decree 50, 2 October 1839. While requirements for and o f municipal government were originally mandated by the ANC, specific responsibilities and organization were legislated by the separate states.
376
City councils also maintained an important role in the military organization o f each state. In August 1823, the ANC instructed city councils to begin to form militias.60 So, in the days and weeks after independence, in kingdom capital Guatemala City and elsewhere, it was the cabildantes who organized military enlistment in preparation to repel either Mexican or Spanish invaders.61 Later, as the federation and individual states each sought to muster up men to fight in the numerous confrontations between cities, regions, and states, city councils continued to be the principal recruiters o f militias. In 1826, for example, the town council of Sonsonate was ordered by the Salvadoran government, according to a law o f 13 January o f the same year, to convoke the local peasants (paisanaje) between 18 and 45 years o f age to form the companies of the militia (legion militar). District military commander authorized the council to draw on other villages if the city limits did not produce sufficient men. Nonetheless, it was the council that was delegated to enlist soldiers and to name sergeants and cabos.62 In Tegucigalpa, Honduras, it was also the municipal council that took charge of recruitment. There, the governor asked the city council to provide men known as ne'er do wells (vagos y malentretenidos) to serve as the local contribution for the federal army.63
60 ANH, Fondo DP, Caja 169, No. 99. Tegucigalpa, per the ANC decree o f 18 August 1823, convoked its citizens to form military companies and enlist soldiers, and to elect officials. In this case, Captain Dionicio Gutierrez was selected as captain o f the citys second company. 61 See Chapter 6. 62 AMS, Caja Actas Municipales, 1821-9, Libro de Actas, 1826, 18 February 1826. 63 AMT, Libro de Actas de Cabildo, 1826, May 31, 1826. On June 2, 1826, the governor approved the selection, despite protests by some o f the mothers o f those "apprehended." By 20 July, the town learned that many had deserted, and recommended keeping them in Comayagua.
377
Since no public works infrastructure existed outside the municipal sphere, technical innovation often began with a project in the state capital, and only subsequently was promulgated for the rest o f a state. City lighting projects followed this model. Guatemala City established gas lighting in the early 1840s, finally acting on recommendations and projects advanced by city councils from the 1810s.64 This novelty spread slowly throughout the rest o f Central America. Although congresses assumed the role o f instigators o f innovation, passing legislation that either urged or required lighting in specific towns, it remained up to the towns themselves to fund and carry out any project. El Salvadors congress decreed that the jueces de policia o f San Salvador and the rest o f the cities in the state institute public street lighting in 1840; towns and villages could establish lighting on request but were not forced to do so.65 Tegucigalpa, capital o f Honduras, did not receive public lighting until 1859, when a congressional order decreed it.66 Attempts were made to reduce the city councils judicial functions, but state governments had a difficult time enforcing the ANCs liberal ideal o f separation o f
54 Alejandro Marure, E fem erid es , p. 123. According to Marure, 5 December 1841marked the day the lighting became effective. Guatemala City's ayuntam iento had proposed various similar projects in 1811, 1818, 1821, 1824, 1837. AGCA A 1.2 Leg. 2189, Exp. 15737, f!76-77, Libro de actas, 1811; A l.2.3, Legajo 44, Expediente 1128, 1818, Bando del ayuntamiento sobre alumbrado publico; AGCA A1.2 Legajo 2194, Expediente 15747, ff. 54, 78, 152; B78.50, Leg. 865, Exp. 21230. For the 1840 establishment of lighting, see AGCA B78.50, Leg. 627, Exp. 12577-12579; Leg. 1648; B78.6, Leg. 3545. 65 Ysidro Menendez, R ecopilacion d e las leyes..., Book 4, Title 5, Law 1(7 October 1840), Art. 1& 12. The decree called for the governor or mayors to designate the places to site the lamps (Article 3). Each municipality was to select one o f its members to ensure all provisions were carried out (Article 9). By 1843, the government had determined to use a tax on each head of cattle slaughtered in the city to fund the project, and later allocated additional taxes. Menendez, R ecopilacion d e la s leyes. Book 4, Title 5, Law 2, 25 April 1843, and Law 3, 14 August 1843. This tax is the same kind instituted by the Bourbon city councils to meet their needs. See Chapter 3. Reglamento, Alumbrado Publico, Tegucigalpa, 1859, Artss. 1-2, 18 in A n a les, 1967-1969, No. 1, pp. 5456.
378
judicial and executive power. Some o f the state governments attempted to establish a system o f local judges (jueces de primera instancia, jueces de letras), removing the judicial functions from the mayor (alcalde ) o f each town. However, a combination o f confusion on implementation, resistance and a lack of a sufficient number o f qualified or willing applicants made this law a dead letter in most o f the new republic until the idea was abandoned in the 1830s.67 To take just one instance, the conservative government of Guatemala o f 1839 abolished an elaborate system o f judicial circuits created by the liberal government of Mariano Galvez (1831-1838), on the grounds that the system had never functioned adequately and had confused the people. As part o f a process designed to restore order, the government revived the colonial term for governor (corregidor) and restored the mayors function as administrator o f justice. Overall, the focus o f the restored order was not the governor, but the cities and towns o f Guatemala. The commission that prepared the new legislation three o f whose five members served in the Guatemala City municipal council underlined the official recognition of the importance o f municipal government. Its report called on the government to return their influence to the municipalidades.. .for they are the most
6' Less than six months after establishing the judges, a federal congressman proposed to allow mayors to resume judicial functions in any town where there were no judges. This was often the case until the liberal government o f the 1830s pushed to assign them. (ANC, Decree, 23 December 1823). In El Salvador, the 1824 constitution left the mayors in charge o f justice until the 1850s, when civil judges ( ju e c e s d e p a z), took over responsibility for even the least important verbal and conciliatory cases (juicios conciliatorios y ju ic io s verbales). Constitucion de El Salvador, Chap. VIII, Art. 57, 59, 60. Menendez, R ecopilacion d e las L eyes d e E l Sa lva d o r , p. 188, footnote 29. Menendez cites a legislative decree o f 9 December 1854. The 1825 Honduran constitution called for establishment o f ju e c e s d e la instancia, but also noted that in the p u eb lo s en p a rtic u la r mayors would administer justice. (Chap. 9, Art. 66 & 68).
379
important institution on which a representative government can be founded.68 A similar move to restore the functioning o f city government occurred in El Salvador in 1840, when the legislature fixing the bases for a new constitution stated one goal was to remove the obstacles that have paralyzed the development o f the municipal and economic regime o f the pueblos."69 In brief, the city council, and particularly the mayor, remained an important judicial functionary in the new system, with the power to resolve local disputes and the function o f gatekeeper who stood between individuals and state judicial authorities. Old and new responsibilities reinforced the municipalidad as the core institution o f the political system, the place where citizenship would first and most explicitly be exercised.70 In fact, except for a departmental governor (jefe politico, jefe departamental) city government represented the only political institution present in most Central American towns.7 1 Together, ayuntamiento and je fe politico represented the presence of a central authority in the distant reaches o f each state.
68 AGCA C l, Legajo 56, Expediente 1569, f. 4v. Report of the Commission for Provisional Organization o f the State, 27 July 1839. Final version, ff 39-47, adopted as decree 50, 2 October 1839. See particularly articles 41-46, 52-54 regarding municipal and mayor roles. The drafting commission was made up o f Andres Andreu, Alejandro Marure, an Orantes, Manuel Francisco Pavon and Francisco Vidaurre. Andreu, Pavon and Vidaurre all held office in Guatemala Citys m unicipalidad. See Appendix K.. In practice, the decision o f the Guatemalan government not to authorize lieutenant governors (tenientes corregidores), except in one instance, enhanced municipal power, since a district governor with no staff would be required to rely on municipal action to do his job. Because o f the department of Guatemala's large population, the assembly issued an order (No 58) that authorized a teniente corregidor for Amatitlan, San Crsitobal Palm, San Miguel Petapa, Santa Ynes Petapa and Villanueva, as well as their anexos. This district would be politically independent from Guatemala, although still considered part of the department. AGCA C l, Legajo 56, Expediente 1569, f. 53. Order 58, 6 November 1839. 69 Legislative Decree, 24 July 1840, Article 8, in Gallardo, Las constituciones d e E l Salvador , p. 355. 70 Avendaiio R., P rocesos E lectorates y C lose Politico en la Federacion d e C entroam erica, 1810-1840 . ' 1Replacing the colonial governor, the je fe politico was the state governments mouthpiece in the countryside. Each state executive branched named its governors, often drawing them from the same group as before independence: wealthy and politically connected creoles, the Spanish-American elites.
380
As in the colonial past, the executive branch appointed governors to reside in each department capital. The difference was that locally-elected political chiefs employing the same fiat that had previously been exercised by the Spanish king. It was not until the 1830s that Mariano Aycinena, after a sojourn in the United States, denounced the practice as anti-democratic and unjustifiable. He reasoned that a community with the authorization to elect not just its municipal councilors, but deputies to congresses and presidents should elect its own governors. However, with the governors position serving as the only executive appointee in extensive territories, no executive was willing to alter the system. Nationally appointed governors continued in Guatemala, at least, until well into the 20th century, with military governments naming military officers to the posts, and combining political with military functions. The Salvadoran law defining the responsibilities o f governors and municipalities stated the relationship between the two most clearly, the governors will be organs of communication between the Executive power and Municipal Councils (El Salvador, Decree, 4 September 1832, Art. 2). In the 1830s, Mariano Aycinena argued that as executive appointees rather than locally elected officials, these men helped intrigue in elections and serve as instruments o f the [chiefs o f states] blind ambition.72 This was at times an accurate reflection o f the reality o f the governors position, but the theory was otherwise. In El Salvador, the governors principal statutory responsibilities were limited to circulating legislation, keeping public order, and supervising municipal judicial functions, tax and statistics collection, and maintenance o f order (El Salvador
72 [Aycinena], Otras Reflexiones, p. 20.
381
1832, Art. 2, 9-11). In Guatemala, the governor played a more active role although most o f his responsibilities continued to hinge on a towns doing its job correctly (Guatemala, Decree 67, 9 November 1825, Art 3; Constitution o f 1840, Article 13). In times o f war or unrest, the governor was often a military officer, who, in addition to civil authority, supervised the organization o f militias and served as the first line of defense against outside invaders and internal uprisings. By 1839, however, HI Salvador at least had learned from experience the dire consequences o f combining political and military in one man, and excised military responsibilities from the governors role.73 Essentially, if the national or state governments wanted anything done outside o f the capital cities where they met, they would send orders to the jefe, but it would be the town governments that would carry them out. Authorities in the Countryside: State-building from below As discussed above, the governments o f the federation and states o f Central America divided power in the countryside and the responsibilities o f towns and governors as guarantors o f order and administration. In addition, they also entrusted the priests who lived and worked in the countryside with complementary attributes.74 The legislation granting broad powers to town councils, assigning them to the immediate supervision o f governors and the helping hand o f the priest gave local authorities significant autonomy. These local authorities returned the favor, calling on the new
3 Law o f 15 May 1839, dividing political and economic command from that o f the military, in Menendez, R ecopilacion, p. 179. 4 See Jordana Dym, The State, the City and the Priest: Political Pariticpation and Conflict Resolution in Independence-era Central America, C ity a n d Nation: rethinking identity a n d po litics, ed. Michael Peter Smith and Thomas Bender, C om parative urban a n d com m unity research. Volume 7, 2000.
382
republican executive, legislative and judicial branches to mediate in local conflicts. The following section looks at almost three-dozen cases in which disputes between two of the three local authorities led to an appeal to a higher authority. In these cases, local authorities used the traditional appeal to national authorities to reconstitute and reimagine themselves, both reinscribing a Central American identity and creating, or accepting, state identities. This section, which shows the process o f state formation from below, once again underlines the key nature o f municipal government and identification within the Central American political structure. Between 1823 and 182S alone, at least 63 local authorities from Guatemala and El Salvador called on the higher-ups in federal capital Guatemala City to express concern about or seek help in resolving a local issue; the number doubled to 160 in the turbulent civil war period of 1826-1830; and settled back to around 120 in the period 1831-1836.75 O f 34 cases examined in the archive o f the archdiocese of Guatemala (Guatemala and El Salvador)76 for the years 1821 to 1836, more than half originated
,s The Index o f Ecclesiastical Correspondence for 1821-1825 lists at least 85 letters and cases, 163 for the years 1826-1830, and 122 for 1831-1836. In the first two groups, about two thirds o f the letters are from priests, and one third from town councils, with just a couple each from the department chiefs. In the third period, almost half o f the letters are from towns, many wanting to fill a vacancy in their parish; the number o f letters from the governors remains small, but increases. I write at least for several reasons. First, the cases are taken from complaints directed at or passed to the archdiocese in Guatemala City, and thus only cases which involved secular and religious authorities are counted. Second, the documents for 1821 begin with September 15, or independence from Spain, rather than January 1. Third, I have only a partial listing o f cases from the Index, which itself overlooks and miscatalogues a small number of documents, and thus the number of cases within this archive could in fact be somewhat higher. I also don't include within the account cases classified in the index as priests seeking guidance or authorization on purely ecclesiastic matters, which appear not to involve a dispute with local authorities. ,b This set o f documents will not provide information on cases in which church authorities either were not involved or informed. There may be correspondence between towns and central government on issues unrelated to clerical administration, in which neither side enlists the opinion or support gf the church. But, I believe that most cases in which a priest was even peripherally involved left traces in the diocesan archive. The close cooperation between civil and secular authorites that I will demonstrate later on
383
with town councils (21); eight started with a priests request. Judges initiated three, and governors only two. There seem to be no cases in which individuals brought plaint on their own behalf in the ecclesiastic archives. O f these cases, twelve occurred in the first two years after separation from Mexico (1823-5). The rest were filed in the decade between 1826 and 1836 and included all by judges and governors. There were two grounds for appeals in all periods and by all appealers: politics and economics. City and State: When in doubt, write the ANC It was not governors or priests, but town councils that wrote most frequently to the capital requesting intervention in local affairs. Leap-frogging over intermediate authorities in the years immediately following independence, they wrote to the Asamblea Nacional Constituyente (ANC). This is what the Indian municipalities of Sensuntepeque and Titiguapa did in 1823, when they could get no backing within El Salvador in their request to oust their current priest, accused o f supporting Mexican imperialism, and return their former clergyman, a reported liberal in favor o f implementing constitutional reforms.77 Following the same route to authority, the Indian municipality o f Huehuetenango (Guatemala) echoed the Salvadoran towns language and tactics in December 1823, when claiming that priest Bernardino Lemus had been an enemy o f the patria and an ardent supporter not only o f union with Mexico but also o f their departments separation from Guatemala.78
suggests that conflict in the countryside brought swiff, concerted reaction from the capital after consultation between church and state, and thus, a written church record. 17 AHAG-C, T l/1 10, No. 288, 3 1823, Sept., Municipalidad de Titiguapa al Arzobispo Casaus y Torres. 8 AHAG-C, T l/1 10, No. 285, Letter, 21 December 1823, Legajo de documentos sobre Presbitero (Pbro.) Bernardino Lemus, priest of Huehuetenango
384
Politics, however, was not the only justification for a demand to the ANC. Priestly failure to properly administer a parish was also accepted by city and state as actionable. Two Indian villages, Atitan and Sacualpa, both in Guatemalas highlands, were moved to ask the ANCs intervention in 1823 not because o f their respective priests politics but as a result o f poor ministry. Sacualpas Father Manuel Cabrera stood accused o f bad temper failing to administer the sacraments to his parishioners. The Atitan ayuntamiento accused priest Francisco Paz o f a variety o f offenses, ranging from conducting forced marriages, to exacting extreme tribute demands, to beating the municipales (council members).79 Both priests aberrant behavior was inappropriate for any minister and the accusations did not hinge on particular political leanings. In some cases, towns would write to the ANC even if the government, and not the priest, had committed wrongs that needed to be redressed. In a case from July 1823, a ladino Salvadoran town council was not upset at their priest of seven years, father Miguel Alegria, but at his removal from their parish. The members o f the corporation o f the municipality o f Chinameca, who underlined that they had been newly elected per the sovereign decree of the ANC, lost the priest who had arranged to have three churches built in their district and turned no one away from baptism or burial for lack o f funds, because the federal government had declared him an opponent o f the current political system. This letter brilliantly showcases the tenuous quality o f the early republican governments the towns were dealing with. Why, the municipality asked the ANC
9 AHAG-C, T l/1 10, No. 269, November, Ayuntamiento constitucional, Sacualpa, al Soberano Congreso; No289, September, Legajo de Documentos contra el panoco de Atitan, Pbro. Francisco Paz.
385
indignantly, has he (the priest) been separated from his parishioners? Could it be that he was imperial, and had exhorted us to follow that system? Ha! Sir: if he committed this fault, it was not his but ours, and we have rightly been punished, not him [by his removal].... When Citizen Gainza circulated an order to all the town councils, for all the pueblos to say if they wished to adhere to the empire, our priest spoke not a single word on the issue, either in public or private. The meetings which took place in the cabildos o f Jucuapa and Chinameca took place freely, and as the general opinion, then, was for the empire...[A] 1 1 those who went to those meetings then in those pueblos said that they wanted to join Mexico, and even more, after that it was known that the same Citizen Gainza had declared the union of these Provinces to the empire, and it was considered a great crime to speak against that government. What should curate Alegria have done, when he received instructions (oficios) from San Miguel to exhort the inhabitants to provide service to that government? If he had remained silent, and not spoken in public, as he did, he would have been considered a disturber o f order, and perhaps suffered the penalties others suffered... Even when the opinion o f Chinameca was different, it had always to follow the system o f San Miguel, because force decides: and the bayonets were there and would have oppressed the pueblo if it had opposed them ... How could our curate not do as he was ordered? ... Further, just as he exhorted us to obey that imperial government, he has also preached that we should be faithful, submissive and obedient to the Sovereign determinations o f the ANC installed in the capital o f Guatemala, and on the day o f the oath [to the congress] he himself sang the mass and made the exhortation and was the first to take the oath in the presence of the constitutional mayor.80 Chinamecas plaint is unusually eloquent and coherent. This large ladino town which provisioned nearby provincial capital San Miguel presumably had access to a well-educated notary who could make a strong case in favor o f discounting Father Alegrias supposed political inconstancy in a time when the ideology o f the central authorities varied regularly.8 1 Yet Chinamecas fundamental problem was the same as that o f Indian Sensuntepeque: political uncertainty at the top had provided opportunities
80 AHAG-C, T l/108, No 162, 28 July 1823, Legajo de cartas de varios. 8 1 Information regarding town populations, the social composition of inhabitants, and local agriculture or industry comes from Guatemalan priest Domingo Juarros Compendio de la historia de la ciudad de Guatemala (Guatemala, 1808-1821), reprinted as Compendio de la Historia del Reino de Guatemala. 1500-1800 (Guatemala: Editorial Piedra Santa, 1981).
386
for local conflicts to lead to unwelcome changes in authorities at the bottom. In Sensuntepeque the town council was brutally replaced through the efforts, we were told, o f a priest allied with antiliberals' in the towns political elite. State capital San Salvadors immediate problems with Mexican troops prevented it from taking effective countermeasures. In Chinameca, a popular priest was removed for his willingness to
support whichever government was in control o f the capital. Yet, whatever the underlying economic or political causes provoking the decision to address the government, towns called on authorities in the new political system to respond. Chinamecas decision to bring its complaint to the ANC doesnt surprise. But why would a small Indian village like Sensuntepeque or Sacualpa write directly to the highest legislative body in the land, rather than appeal its case through the elaborate hierarchy of officials available, on both civil and ecclesiastic sides? The answer lies in the structure o f colonial government. The audiencia, or Spanish court, located in the colonial capital, had served as the appeals court for the entire colony, not a local official. Thus, in the years subsequent to independence, towns from the Guatemalan diocese forwarded their complaints to the newest highest authority, the Asamblea Nacional, which not only served but represented the whole federation. By either starting with an appeal to the top, as in the Chinameca or Huehuetenango cases, or escalating to it, as in the case o f Sensuntepeque and Titiguapa, the new municipal councils were following tracks well worn by their colonial predecessors. In adapting traditional appeals route to the new political circumstances, these
s' AHAG-C, T l/1 10, No 288, 3 September 1823, Municipalidad de Sensuntepeque a la ANC.
387
towns in essence acknowledged the legitimacy o f the new government to administer justice in both civil and religious spheres. To establish their own legitimate right to make demands on this new government, many councils highlighted the fact that they too were part o f the new system. These councils prefaced their letters with the information that they were ayuntamientos constitucionales or municipalidades, that is the duly-elected bodies that replaced non-elective colonial town councils. Not only
the government, but they themselves drew their authority from the new system, in which they were already participating through accession to elective office. Other councils, often representing Indian communities, used a combination of colonial-era with republican political vocabularies. For example, the Indian mayors of Santiago Atitlan wrote as representatives o f the masses (comun ) and sons o f the town (hijos del pueblo). Additional research would be necessary to determine whether the mixed language represented a less sophisticated approach, a nuanced reading o f the political uncertainty at the center, a decision to cover all the bases, or an ambiguous relationship to the change. It is possible that some towns wished both to make use of the governments authority to intervene, accepted by sending an appeal to the ANC, while simultaneously communicating that they were unsympathetic to the political decisions made in the capital.84 Yet, regardless o f the vocabulary chosen, one thing did
83 Titiguapa, Sensuntepeque and Chinameca are Salvadoran examples o f this; the Lemus case in Huehuetenango is from Guatemala. MIn the Atitan case, it is clear that the writers know they need to preface their letter with the term alcalde for they use the colonial appellation o f justicia within the body o f their letter when referring to Paz wresting of the staff o f office from the towns officials. AHAG-C, T 1/110, No 289, 1823, Legajo de Documentos contra el parroco de Atitan, Pbro. Francisco Paz.. The mixing o f language continued well into the 1830s, possibly to ensure that all bases were covered in an era o f changing political systems. See for example, the 1833 case of the Municipality o f San Miguel Chicaj that wrote as hijos ciudadanos
388
not happen. No towns wrote to Mexican or Spanish authorities. Nor did their letters to the republican governments emphasize their servitude as vassals, for it was as co participants in the new system that the municipalidades o f Guatemala and El Salvador could legitimize claims for government mediation. Through appealing to the ANC, in addition to or in lieu o f state authorities, the new municipalidades respected the tradition o f unity o f the former Kingdom of Guatemala and the diocese, which included both Guatemala and Salvador. Given the disorganized, fly-by-night nature o f the early state governments, as experienced by Sensuntepeque and Chinameca, resorting to a federal power did not necessarily mean identification with the peoples o f the rest o f the isthmus, although some towns, like Sensuntepeque, wrote as members o f our nation. Instead, the attempt was to retain a government strong and stable enough to keep its end o f the bargain in terms of maintaining order and rewarding its rural supporters. In the case against Lemus o f Huehuetenango, the honorable citizens.. .who live and breathe for the liberal system, and who desire to manifest their faithful patriotism wanted to sustain the rights o f the Guatemalan government against a schism within the Guatemalan state. The Guatemalan highlands had tried to withdraw not only from Central America during the Mexican period, but also to erect a new state, Los Altos (a goal which would be briefly achieved in 1838-9).85 Regardless o f whether use o f this language o f unity reflected a
alcalde constitucional y demas comun menores masaguales [Indian commoners] hijos del pueblo de San Miguel Chichaj.AHAG-Gobiemo,Vol. 21, f. 332-333, Carta de la municipalidad de S. Miguel Chichaj, Verapaz. 85 AHAG-C, T l/1 10, No 285, 4 Nov. 1823, Carta de Ciudadanos de Gueguetenango al Supremo Poder Ejecutivo de las Provincias Unidas del Centro de America. The mayor accused Lemus o f supporting
389
belief in a Central American national identity or a rhetorical strategy, it served just as use o f other types o f republican rhetoric, to doubly identify the authority o f the appealing town and the authorities it turned to for help. The first enthusiasm for independence continued to support union o f the provinces o f Central America, and a government that righted wrongs throughout. Local problems, be they between inhabitants o f one village or between towns within a district, continued to be brought to the attention o f higher authorities for resolution. The project o f forging a state, or nation, which could keep order in the countryside was not just the goal o f elites in the capitals, but one o f the goals those in the countryside apparently wanted for themselves, as well, at least in certain circumstances. Creating the state within the federation The ANC, however, was not a court, and did not accept the role o f direct mediator o f local conflicts. As a matter o f course, the assembly forwarded the complaints to the head o f the appropriate state government. For cases from the archdiocese o f Guatemala, this was the chief executive (jefe superior), o f the states of Guatemala and El Salvador. In this post-independence period, the jefe superior, in his turn, passed cases involving clerics on to the archbishops office to settle. Prior to 1830, it seems there is only one case, that o f Atitan, in which the secular authority began an investigation at the same time as the ecclesiastic verification o f charges. Even in this case, however, the final decision on how to treat the problem remained in the
secession o f the Los Altos region from the state o f Guatemala and the federation in 1821. In this usage, the town considers the patria to be the federation and Guatemala the legitimate capital o f the state o f the same name, to include their own town.
390
archbishops hands.86 This new procedure instituted by the ANC defined the responsibility for local conflicts as one that was dealt with within state, rather than colonial or federal boundaries, and it quickly took root. The weakness o f the federal government no doubt aided the switch. After all, there were no federal agents in the countryside: towns and governors were regulated by state legislation and reported directly to state officials in the state capital. Despite an extended civil war fought in Guatemala and El Salvador from 1826 to 1829, appeals by small towns for government mediation continued, and by the early 1830s, towns routinely referred their complaints not to the Federal Congress, the ANCs successor, or to the president of the Republic, but directly to the state governments. Some towns continued to rely on republican language o f association to attract the desired intervention. In 1831, the Mam municipality o f Tejutla wrote to the Guatemalan government, asking to keep its current priest, in the name of the nation and for our part.87 Yet in the letter, there is no referent to what nation was meant, and political developments had compounded the ambiguity o f its meaning. Did writing to Guatemala and reffering to nation imply recognition o f the authorities o f the state o f Guatemala as representative of a sovereign nation, a political break still seven years into the future? Could it refer to the Mam community within Guatemala, and the
86 AHAG-C, T l/1 10, 289, 6 Mar. 1824, Legajo de Documentos contra el parroco de Atitan, Pbro. Francisco Paz. At the same time that the archbishop named two priests to interview witnesses to verify charges, the state government ordered the governor o f Solola to investigate. The episcopal prosecutor (fiscal) used both sets o f evidence to evaluate the claim and decided to call the Father Paz in for questioning.
391
specific town in particular? Perhaps most likely, nation implied no particular affiliation but the importance o f the term in Central American political rhetoric to signify recognition of membership in a centrally administered political community. Regardless o f which nation the town o f Tejutla claimed to belong to, the state it recognized was clearly Guatemala. Belonging, however, was not the only key used to open the door to government intervention. Towns were prepared to imply that inaction would be met with breakdown o f order in the countryside. The municipality o f Masagua (Guatemala), in 1832, wrote the state government to seek redress for their priests foul language, insults to municipal authority, and interference with elections of confraternity officials. They claimed the governments attention on the grounds that the priests disrespect could lead to ill-fated results and impair their ability to keep order.88 Government mediation and responsiveness, then, could be a condition to ensure that mediation rather than violence would be the strategy of choice elected by local authorities, such as those in Masagua. Like the ANC in the 1820s, the state executive in the 1830s continued to refer local demands to the archbishops office for resolution. The shift was not with government processing of complaints, but in how towns interacted with the superior authorities: state officials, rather than federal ones, had become the mediators o f local conflicts. By the mid 1830s, when a strong liberal regime under reformer President Mariano Galvez governed Guatemala, this was reflected in increased municipal
8' AHAG-G, V. 21, ff. 153-155, 27 Sept. 1831, Carta de los feligreses de la Parroquia de Tejutla. 88 AHAG-G, V. 21, fF. 194-197, 8 March 1832, Carta de la municipalidad de Masagua al Sup. Gob. del Estado.
392
acceptance o f state authorities at the departmental level as possible mediators. In this period, some towns turned first to the intermediate authorities o f jefe departamental and even the ju ez for help. Such appeals routes had existed in the colonial period, but had quickly been abandoned after independence.89 The grounds for complaint routed through governors and judges varied, although with a settled liberal government in power in the state capital, emphasis was on priestly administrative or economic misconduct, rather than political activity. Choice o f the official with whom to lodge a complaint seemed linked more to the relationship between town and authorities, rather than any statutory requirement to report to one or the other. In 1833, the municipality o f Zacapa (Guatemala) accused priest Francisco Rendon of neglecting his official responsibilities when they required him to work in the towns outside the cabecera. The town appealed to the governor, who put the request into the judicial system. The courts referred the case to the central government, which turned to the archbishop, who ordered an investigation.90 In 1834, the municipal council o f Salama, when it could not get its priest to provide the accounts for the church-building fund, asked the governor to intercede. Their own efforts to reach an understanding with their prelate had only resulted in a vengeful sermon from the pulpit that accused the council of meddling in affairs for which it had no responsibility, exceeding its small faculties. In this case, the governor forwarded the
89 I found only one case from before 1831. In February 1824, the town council o f San Pedro Sacatepequez (Guatemala) asked the subjefe politico o f Quezaltenango for help in removing their curate, a Mercedarian friar living in sin with the mother of his two daughters. AGCA B Leg. 1248, Exp. 30474, Subjefe politico de Quezaltenango al Gobiemo (February 1824).
393
case to the Minister o f Interior ( Gobemacion ), who turned it over to the vicario capitular .9 1 When the Indian community o f Guazacapan had a complaint against their priest, whom they accused of keeping a lover, they appealed to the judge in their cabecera. The judge, when stonewalled by the accused, sent the case to the Supreme Court in Guatemala City; the court, in turn, brought the ecclesiastical prosecutor into the case.92 Even if the departmental authorities did not have the ability or will to resolve the question, the fact that towns had begun to use them as the first step in the appeals process indicates a recognition o f their position in the hierarchy. From the first days o f independence throughout the turbulent 1830s, city councils met to decide which governments to support, which troops to send, which monies to circulate, which taxes to pay, and which laws to implement. Although technically under the supervision o f the departmental governors who replaced the colonial governors, city councils as duly elected representatives of the people had no compunction about directly demanding state or federal government intervention or attention. What about the Individual? The previous sections discussed the relationship between city, state and federal governments in a system of mutually constituting appeals. In these sections, I have argued that it was the city through its officials, not the individual, which could demand
90 AHAG-G, V. 2 1, f f. 338-51, 26 July 1833, Carta de la municipalidad de Zacapa al Gobemador departm ental de Chiquimula, Mariano Trabanino. 91 AHAG-G, V. 22, ff. 7-11; 18-20, 10 January 1834, Carta de la Municipalidad de Salama al Gefe departamental.
394
government mediation because political legitimacy derived from communal and not individual needs. Implicit in this argument is that the city, not the individual citizen, was the constitutive political element o f the Central American federation. Before turning attention to cases originating with governors and priests, individual actors operating within these larger institutions, one should emphasize the point that the new citizens o f Central America continued to act as though the government was responsible to communities and not to the individuals who made them up. Evidence from those municipal appeals cases in which a defense survives show clearly that individuals seeking governmental mediation under the new system disguised their particular agendas through invocation o f municipal representation. The possibilities for individuals to hijack the mantle o f municipal authority as a tool to gain advantage in a local political struggle come into focus when both accusation and defense survive. In Sensuntepeque, the actual priest o f the parish, Francisco Fuentes, proved to governmental satisfaction his patriotism, effectiveness as an agent of social control, and the fact that the municipality had acted not for the common good, but because o f intrigues o f individuals (particulares). Use o f the Spanish word particular implies behavior for personal rather than communal benefit. Specifically, the previous priest wanted his parish back and was promising Sensuntepeques municipales license to take revenge for acts committed during the conflict with Mexican troops in return for their advocacy. In addition, Fuentes believed the municipality resented him for using the pulpit to inveigh against robbery, a crime the town had quite
92 AGCA B Leg 1282, Exp. 31220, Camara de 2a Instancia, Escuintla. Caso 3. Contra el Ale 2o y Parroco
395
a reputation for committing.93 Similarly, priest Bernardino Lemus successful defense against charges o f promoting secession challenged not only his accusers ideological charge, but their very right to appeal on behalf o f the town. A councils right to aid was not in question. Lemus agreed that [w]hen one sees the representation o f a municipalidad , when one considers that in it echoes all the voice o f a Pueblo, it is appropriate to give it all ones attention at once. Instead, through fifty-seven testimonies o f municipalities, [Indian] communities (comunes), the most honorable inhabitants o f Huehuetenango and o f other towns, he demonstrated that in this case, it was not the Pueblo which accused the priest, but a few [men] compelled by Recinos; and o f these, most are his relatives, his cousin and five sons.94 A close reading o f the original denunciation reveals the truth o f this assertion. Although signed by the town secretary, in the municipal meeting room, and submitted as a municipal representation, the letter was not from the municipalidad at all, but from various citizens o f the municipalidad." Manuel Recinos, Huehuetenangos municipal secretary in 1823, wrote out and signed the letter. Recinos, as becomes clear in the evidence, was also the agent behind and drafter of the original complaint. Most o f the citizens who denounced the priest in the town hall were his relatives: his cousin and his five sons, brothers-in-law, and several nephews. Two other signatories recanted when
de Guasacapan, H. Perez, y Pbro E. Echicoyen. 93 AHAG-C, T l/1 10, No 288, 7 Sep. 1823, Cura Fuentes al Arzobispo Casaus y Torres & 17 Nov., Cura Fuentes al Arzobispo. 94 AHAG-C, T l/1 10, No 285, 1824, Carta, Legajo de documentos sobre Pbro. Bernardino Lemus.
396
asked about their signatures.95 Only in 1824, after he had been elected mayor, was Recinos able to dispense with letters from citizens and send letters from the council. By this point, however, the municipalidad had little credibility with the government or archbishop. Lemus evidence that ladinos Recinos and his ally, Joseph Aguayo, expropriated and sold communal properties used by the towns majority Indian population without reimbursing the municipality, over Lemus opposition, carried the day. Lemus returned to his parish from Guatemala City, where he had been called to make his case, and the 1824 city councils objection to the celebration held on his return was ignored.96 These two cases are not unique. It would appear that a standard tool for a priestly defense was the attack not on the principle o f municipal appeals for government intervention, but on the legitimacy o f the accusing municipality. Similarly, it would appear that a standard tool o f an individual or family engaged in a power struggle would be to seek municipal validation of a claim. Even when an individual could not get an actual municipality to front an accusation, if well-placed he could, like secretary Recinos, bring all the trappings of municipal authority to turn a struggle for personal gain into a political threat to the republic. In either case, the principle that the municipality and not the individual citizen served as legitimator and gatekeeper to issues government intervention in local administration remains unchallenged. These also demonstrate that when not the source o f a complaint that claimed
95 AHAG-C, T l/1 10, No 285, 4 Nov 1823, Carta de Ciudadanos de Gueguetenango al Supremo Poder Ejecutivo de las Provincias Unidas del Centro de America. 96 AHAG-C, T l/1 10, No 285, 9 September 1824, Legajo de documentos sobre Pbro. Bernardino Lemus.
397
government attention, the municipality could serve as the authority corroborating or denying cases lodged by other officials, such as the governor. Colonel Indalecio Perdomo, Governor and Commander o f the department o f Chiquimula, Guatemala, wrote to the state capital in February 1828 to report priest Manuel Lemus supposed betrayal o f Guatemala by handing over the town o f Mitas buried silver to attacking Salvadoran troops. The municipality o f the town defended the priest, pointing out that it had been a local family and not the priest who had betrayed the country. The council even declared that Lemus through his sermons had urged the towns residents to take up arms to defend the patria?1 The government informed the archbishop, who summoned Lemus to the capital to present his defense. When the case against Lemus could not be substantiated, archbishop and government agreed to the priests return, with the government underlining the need for priestly cooperation with the civil and authorities in their departments. Men of the Council As the Lemus case demonstrates, it behooved the governments o f Central America to determine who, in fact, was sitting on a given town council. Part o f the reason for this need was not just to determine if a plea for government intervention on behalf of a community was legitimate. On the contrary, governments wished to know what type of person was making the request on his towns behalf. After independence, the abolition of legal restrictions on municipal office holding based on ethnicity (caste) combined with the institutionalization o f popular elections and overall expansion in
9' AHAG-C, Tl/199, No. 69, 26 Feb. 1828, Arzobispo al Pbro. C. Lemus, priest o f Asuncion Mita.
398
government positions opened up numerous seats on city councils throughout Central America. Traditional elite families continued to fill many o f the seats in the former Spanish ciudades and villas, but no longer held a monopoly on the elective positions. In addition to traditional sources o f new blood European immigrantsmany post independence city councils in district and state capitals permanently incorporated men of mixed ethnic background (castas) who had first participated openly in city government in the Spanish constitutional periods (1812-1814, 1820-1821). The patterns o f post-independence municipal office holding, and the correlation between municipales and holders o f state and national office, can be traced in Guatemala City and Tegucigalpa, both sometime state capitals, and Sonsonate, cabecera o f the district of its name within the state o f El Salvador. The makeup o f the Guatemala City town council between 1825-1850 in some ways resembled that o f the colonial ayuntamiento. The first- and second-generation offspring of the Bourbon colonial elite and a few remaining descendants o f conquistadores - sons o f the Aycinenas, Beltranenas, Palomos, Arrivillagas and Urruelas among otherscontinued to hold many council seats at least up until 1850, the last year I examined, although not all elite families survived the transition to independence and popular election.
no
As in the colonial period, municipal office also
attracted immigrants, like merchants Domingo Payes (1822, 1849-50), Julian Villegas
98 Families with at least four municipales in Guatemala City between 1787-1850 include: Aguirre, Arrivillaga, Aycinena, Asturias (Alvarez de Asturias), Beltranena, Castillo, Galvez, Lara, Moreno, Najera, Pavon, Palomo, Taboada, Umiela, Valdes and Yela. Other families, like the Marticorenas and Manrriques, faded from the rolls. The Arrivillaga, Galvez and Najera families are three that participated in municipal politics since the early eighteenth century. See Appendix K.
399
(1827, 1840-41, 1847), Jose Maria Cambronero (1826-1827) Eusebio Tejada (1827), and Damaso Angulo (1835, 1839, 1843, 1850) o f Spain." The continued presence o f European-bom city councilors after independence, when Guatemalans were no longer required to elect them to office suggests that some of the tensions o f incorporation of Spaniards into the colonial cabildo had to do with interpersonal relations rather than ideological concerns. Certainly, the new arrivals took care to connect to local families in the way their predecessors had. Angulo married into the Urruela family, Tejada into the Oyarzabal family, and Cambronero into the Gutierrez family o f Costa Rica.100 Since the city council continued to oversee the markets, administer justice, and take charge of militia recruitment and taxation, it is not surprising that land-owning and merchant interests sought to maintain their influence in city government. While continuing to include members o f the merchant and landed elite, the 1825-1850 municipality fulfilled the promise o f constitutionalism and incorporated additional layers of Creole society. The post-independence period saw the emergence o f new families as regular municipal officeholders. Several families not represented on the colonial ayuntamiento before the constitutional period o f 1820-1821 placed at least three members each in the Guatemala City municipalidad in the two decades immediately following independence. Most were professionals, like the six men o f the Dardon and Dieguez families, who all were lawyers.1 01 In addition to economic and
99 See Appendix K. 100 See Appendix K. 1 0 1 Andres, Manuel and Marcos Dardon were syndics and mayors between 1836 and 1848. Jose Domingo, Juan and Manuel Dieguez were syndics and aldermen between 1820 and 1849. Other families
400
social status, elite and non-elite electors valued education as a criterion for council membership. Certainly, the education level of the council increased after independence. Fully 74 municipales between 1821-1850, from both traditional and new council families, held university degrees or belonged to the newly established lawyers association (Colegio de Abogados).102 When one considers that only 39 individuals were registered with the Colegio in 1813, it is clear that Guatemalans had actively pursued the study o f the law in the years leading up to independence.103 The influence o f the Cortes of Cadiz and Spanish constitutionalism cannot be overstated. It is likely that the election o f educated men to the Guatemala city council represented the opening o f participation in municipal government to upwardly-mobile men o f mixed-race {mulato or mestizo ) , although it would be impossible to prove without an examination o f baptismal records for the period.104
with a post-constitutional presence included: Samayoa, Palacios, Estrada, Flores and Larrave. See Appendix K. I0 See Appendix K. 10 3 John Carter Brown Library, 70-2280 Broadsides. Guatemala, Lista d e lo s Individuos d e l ilustre colegio d e a b o g a d o s d e este reyno de Guatemala (Nueva Guatemala: [n.p.], 1813). Sixteen o f the 39 would eventually serve in the Guatemala City cabildo. 10 4 It would require an examination of the casta baptismal records for early nineteenth century Guatemala to confirm this hypothesis.
401
Table 7.5: University Graduates and Lawyers, Guatemala City Council, 1821*1850
Officeholder ' -V. v Origin Costa Rica? Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala . . -G G Senice. 1830, Syndic 1810-1837, A, S, R 1839-1848:A,R 1831, A 1824-25 S Sec, 1825-28 1821, S 1829-43, S, R, A 1820-1826 S 1826-31,R,S 1820-1832 R 1815,S 1819-22 A 1817-8 R; 1826 A 1832-3, R; 1845 A 1820 R 1814-1827, R, A 1825-1829 R 1839S 1849 A 1826 S, 1849-50 A 1847 A 1821 R 1827-1839 R, S 1811-14; 20-21Sec 1849 S 1823 S 1845 A 1845 R 1831-4, S, A 1850-1 R 1823-4S, 1825-41A 1822 S 1827 S 1832 A 1830,1843, 1857R 1820-1838, R A 1825-9 R S A 1821 A 1814 A, 1825 S ;]Umv/Cdlegîer; Abosadoc? 1810,F;1813M 1794, F ; 1797C &L 1833, A -1814, M -1 8 1 4 ,L 1819,L -1794 L 1823* -1810, L -1815 L -1816 L 1793 F 1798 F 1823* 1801 F; 1805 L 1794 C 1809 F 1818 C, L 1841* 1819 F; 1843* 1809 T 1785 F 1804 F, 1808 L 1843* 1813 F, -1815L 1807 T;1816* 1803 F 1819 F Prel835 M 1807 F, 1810 M 1820 C & L 1818 C 1813 F -1825 M 1800 C 1810 F; 1818* -1800 M 1818 F; 1825*
Pablo Alvarado Juan Bautista Alvarez de Asturias Andres Andreu Felipe Arana Cesario Araus Manuel Arbeu Pedro Arroyave Pedro Aycinena y Pinol Mariano Aycinena y Pinol Miguel Barrundia y Zepeda Jose Maria Bamitia y Croquer Antonio Batres y Asturias Rafael Batres y Asturias Luis Batres y Munoz (y Juarros) Gregorio Beltranena Jose Maria Beltranena y Llano Joaquin Beltranena y Llano Manuel Beteta (Jose) Vicente Bolanos Manuel Bolanos Jose Maria Cardenas Manuel Castro y Gutierrez Jose Francisco de Cordova Mariano Cordova Domingo Cortes Jose Domingo Estrada Jose Maria Estrada Juan Estrada Jose Farfan Quirino Flores Jose Mariano Galvez Mariano Herrarte Manuel Jose Jauregui y Jauregui Buenaventura Lambur Jose Antonio Larrave y Velasco Jose Ignacio Larrave y Velasco Mariano Larrave Bernardino Lemus
Guatemala Guatemala
Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala
402
Table 7.5: University Graduates and Lawyers, Guatemala City (cont.)

Officeholder
Jose Venancio Lopez Jose Antonio Lopez Matias Martinez Manuel Montufar Eusebio Murga Jose Manuel Noriega Gregorio Orantes Manuel Ortiz Urruela Jose Francisco Pacheco Antonio Padilla Mariano Palacios y Panero Manuel Pa von Manuel Pinol y Aycinena Jose Basilio Porras Felipe Prado Manuel Rafael Ramirez Antonio Rivera Cabezas Jacinto Rivera Paz Antonio Robles Luis de la Roca Benedicto Saenz Manuel Salmon Ramon Samayoa Salvador Saravia Juan Taboada Asturias Manuel Ubico Jose Maria Urruela y Urruela Jose Valdes Liverato Valdes Tomas Valdes Joaquin Valdes y Lacunza Francisco Xavier Valenzuela Pedro Jose Valenzuela Jose Maria Velasco Francisco Vidaurre Manuel Zavala Guatemala Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala
Spain
Guatemala
_ _ I M C d fe | deZ:;; ~ Abogados* '= 'r^ 1814, 1820S 1812* 1831-1841, A, R 1806 F, 1809 T 1838-1848, S.A.R 1835* 1849-50, S 1849* 1 8 3 4,1847R -1825 L 1809 F; 1817* 1831 A 1833* 1833 S 1847 A 1844 R 1839* 1825 R 1822 L 1845 S 1843* 1827-28 S 1819 F 1848 A -1817 L 1839A 1818 L; 1822* 1823-1846R S A 1810 F ,-1817 L 1827 S 1839-40 R 1819 F; 1823* 1814, 1820R 1794 F, 1798 C 1824, 1848 1808* 1845-6 S 1849 R 1843* 1800 F, 1804 L 1821 A 1836 R 1833* 1823-1838, S R 1831 M 1830 R 1833 A 1819 F 1849-1850 R 1847* 1849 A 1836* 1842 S 1831* 1840 1836* 1827 -1845R S A 1828* 1827 R 1829 A 1790 F, 1794 C 1797 L, 1810 Dr T & L 1849 A 1813 F ,1819 L;1822* 1846 R M 1818-1840 A R 1803 F, 1808 L 1822-1842 R. A, S 1819/1821L; 1818 C 1821 R 1824 S 1821 L; 1824* 1829 R 1830 A 1818 C 1833 A 1818 L 1844-5 S 1843*
C ^ S a yice .
GC Service: A - Alcalde (Mayor), R - Regidor (Alderman), S=-Sindico (Syndic); Bachelor in: L = Law, F = Philosophy, C = Sacred Law, T = Theology, M = Medicine, A=Arts; * year of entry into the Colegio de Abogados. Sources: AGCA A I L 2756, E 23814, Abogados examinados en la Real Aud. del Reino de Guatemala(l 801-1861); Indice de los grados de Bachiller conferidos, 1750-1821, A1 Leg. 6940, Exp. 57773-57779.
403
A similar pattern o f traditional and innovative municipal officeholding emerged in smaller towns, like Honduran capital Tegucigalpa and district cabecera Sonsonate. However, there were some important distinctions. In both Tegucigalpa and Sonsonate, the wealthy and educated successfully vied for municipal posts but opened office holding to other local families and newcomers who might not have qualified for the seats before 1821.105 Once again, many families that survived the split represented the first- or second-generation offspring o f Spanish municipales o f the early nineteenth century.106 Although they were fewer in the provincial cities, foreigners such as Jose Ferrari and Estevan Guardiola in Tegucigalpa and Bertrand Save and Guillermo Varchand in Sonsonate, continued to be elected to municipal office, even when they did not want to be.107 The local communities clearly saw benefit in making use o f the expertise o f foreigners, regardless o f the foreign residents desires. What is interesting to note here is that the foreigners in the provinces were as likely to come from a variety of European countries -Ferrari was likely Italian, Save and Varchand were Frenchnot just from Spain. If Guatemala City still maintained its commercial and regional ties
> os These Tegucigalpa families included the: Alcantara, Fiallos Landa, Lardizabal, Lozano, Midence, Rosa, Ugarte, Urmeneta and Yrias. Some families, like the Alcantaras and Landas, can be traced to a Spanish immigrant of the early nineteenth century. In Sonsonate, the Angeles, Borica, Campo, Contreras, Cuellar, Mencia, Mendez, Rascon, Rivas, Sosa, Trigueros and Villavicencio families all had members on both pre- and post-independence municipalidades. See Appendices L (Tegucigalpa) and M (Sonsonate). 106 For example, the Alcantaras in Tegucigalpa descended from Jose Alcantara who came to Central America in the 1770s. Pedro and Rafael Campo y Pomar o f Sonsonate were sons o f Pedro Campoo y Arpa, a Spanish merchant who had previously been both alderman and mayor of Sonsonate. 107 Tegucigalpa, Libro de Cabildo, 1840, 1841, 1843. Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres (Paris), Correspondance Consulaire, Guatemala, Volume 2 :1844-1845, pp. 235-249v. Ferrari, a miner and a banker (prestamista), naturalized as a Honduran citizen to serve on the city council. Save preferred arrest to taking office as mayor of Sonsonate in 1841 and 1844, because he risked losing his French citizenship by serving a government post in El Salvador. Two French consuls in El Salvador, Mahelin and Huet, raised his case with the Salvadoran foreign ministry.
404
with the Spanish homeland, the provincial capitals proved welcoming territory for men with no initial connections. Even more than in Guatemala City, however, new families rose to occupy numerous city council seats in the decades following independence, and here we can show that men considered castas in the colonial period took advantage o f the new political system to establish themselves in positions o f institutional power.108 In Sonsonate, for example, Juan Santos Gutierrez, a mulatto whose seat on the city council of 1817 was challenged because of his ethnicity, went on to be elected once as alderman and three times as mayor between 1822 and 1834.109 In Sonsonate, the Angeles, Arauz, Cea, Rivas and Vega families only served in the constitutional councils o f 1812-1814 and 1820-1821 before independence, suggesting that they could only be elected under constitutional rules, i.e. that they were o f casta heritage. They went on to serve in multiple positions after 1821. The Estrada, Galindo, Gomez, Gutierrez, Reyes and Ugarte families in Tegucigalpa shared this experience.11 0 Additional evidence that upwardly mobile castas made their way into provincial city councils can be found by examining the professions they exercised. In Tegucigalpa, the new municipales were likely to be in the trades rather than in
1 0 8 In Tegucigalpa, the new families included: Bustillos, Castro, Cerrato, Cubas, Davila, Estrada, Laynes Moncada, Reyes, Soto, and Zuniga. In Sonsonate: Angeles, Arauz, Cea, Choto, Gomez, Gutierrez, Huezo, and Vega were new. In Sonsonate, the Angeles, Arauz, Cea, Rivas and Vega families only served in the constitutional councils of 1812-1814 and 1820-1821 before independence, suggesting that they could only be elected under constitutional rules, i.e. that they were o f casta heritage. The Chotos only joined the council in the 1830s. See Appendices L (Tegucigalpa) and M (Sonsonate). 109 Gutierrez was mayor in 1822, 1825 and 1834, and alderman in 1832. See Appendix M. 110 See Appendix L (Tegucigalpa). Again, confirmation of these hypotheses would require an examination o f baptismal records.
405
professions such as law and medicine that required university training.1 1 1 Most were artisanstailors, carpenters, shoemakers, ironworkers and laborers. Although many of these men were literate (they signed their names in the municipal book o f acts), they did not merit the honorific don and lived outside the central neighborhood that was home to most o f the Spanish and Creole elite.112 Given the population distribution o f the town, it is not surprising that upwardly mobile castas would make their way to the city council. An 1801 census established that there were at most 86 Spanish (white) families in Tegucigalpa and 507 ladino (mulatto) families, for the Honduras governor who wrote the report suggested that many Spanish families were not as pure as they pretended.113 This is not to say that the merchants and miners, and their relatives, vanished from the town council. O f 49 capitalists (capitalistas) listed in an 1860 census o f Tegucigalpa, fifteen were or had been members o f the city council before 1850. At
1 1 1 Tegucigalpa had only around a dozen lawyers serve in its m u n ic ip a lid a d between 1820 and 1850, and most were elected in the 1840s. See Appendix L (Tegucigalpa) 1 There were fourteen tailors who served in the town council between 1821 and 1850, including Secundino and Nicolas Bustillos (139), Dionicio and Crecencio Cubas (102, 110), and Juan Gomes (280). Rafael Cubas (111), Guillermo Davila (109) and George Laines (114) were among five carpinters. Juan Angel Rosa (104) and Miguel Laynes (106) were shoemakers, and Roque Bustillos (209) and Justo Gomes (201) were blacksmiths (herrero, albanil). While many men reported their profession as miner it is impossible to distinguish between elites who financed mines and men who worked their own mines.
Censo fo r m a d o d e orden d el N oble A yuntam iento d e esta villa d e Tegucigalpa, d e su s v e c in o s y havitatttes con expresion d e su s edades, oficios, y n o ta s....se com enso en l o d e enero d e 1821. Published in RABN. O f 488 houses surveyed in the census, only the first 19 were in the p la za m ayor, and by the
80th house, residents with don (honorific signalling membership in the Spanish elite) became scarce. With one exception, the tailors, carpinters, and other laborers lived in the houses from 100 onwards, and did not have the honorific don, suggesting their m ulatto origins. Dionicio Gutierrez, a tailor, was, the only Donand lived in house 64; his wife and children, however, did not receive the honorific. 1 1 3 AGI Guatemala 501, Ramon de Anguiano, governor, P oblacion d e la s P rovincias d e H onduras, Matricula de 1801. The governor commented on this census that while the Spanish families herein expressed present at first glance a civil population not in the least common ( vulgar ) and proper society and public sustenance, one should not believe this to be so. Most are creole families, which, if one seeks out their origin, perhaps do not merit this distinction."
406
least another 8 were sons and or brothers o f municipales. Furthermore, sixteen o f the 25 capitalistas living in the city center fell into one o r the other o f these categories.11 4 Or, in other words, the tw o thirds o f the most important merchants and bankers of Tegucigalpa had thought municipal office a worthwhile endeavor. Simply, the financiers and merchants o f mid-nineteenth century Tegucigalpa continued to work through the town council as well as through private enterprise to advance their own interests, alongside the towns artisans, who formerly had not been able to aspire to such office. City, State and Federal Government After independence, the electoral system and the multiplication of government posts combined to shorten the number o f years that men o f education and talent spent in municipal office. For the same men in demand as mayors, syndics and aldermen in the principal cities and towns o f Central Americathe same dozen or so urban centers that had served as economic, political and cultural centers in the colonial periodwere the lawyers, doctors, miners, landowners and other professionals whom presidents selected for their ministries and whom both small and large towns elected to national office. As in the colonial period, there was a strong correlation between holding municipal, military and government offices. Serving on the city council o f an important urban center remained an indirect route to power as well as an alternate place to influence
114 "Matricula que forma la municipalidad de Tegucigalpa....con expresion de nombres y edades, Revista del A rchivoy Biblioteca Nacionales de Honduras, Vol. 24, pp. 47-8.. The report indicated that in addition to the list o f 49 capitalists, the city government had compiled a list o f 1327 proletarios as well.
407
government when state or national service was complete or impossible due to a change in regimes. The members o f the mid-nineteenth century congresses and governments o f Central America were o f three principal types, all o f whom represented the most educated members o f society: the priests, the lawyers, and the town councilors. The latter two groups often overlapped. Many o f the most distinguished politicians o f the early post-independence period had first experienced government as mayors, aldermen and syndics as can be seen in the number o f Guatemala City, Sonsonate and Tegucigalpa municipales who held numerous appointed offices (see Appendix S). Unsurprisingly, the cabildantes o f Guatemala City had a significantly higher participation in government than smaller towns, as their residents were not only the wealthiest and best educated, but also resident in or near the capital o f the state and federation. At least 175 men elected to this one town council after 1814 had held elective and appointed office in various state and national governments by 1850. This group included some o f the most distinguished leaders of the period, and represented both provincial elites who had made their careers in the capital, like Jose Cecilio del Valle, author o f the 1821 declaration o f independence, and Guatemalan native sons, like Jose Mariano Galvez, liberal reformer and Guatemalan president from 1831-1838.115
1 1 5 Arturo Taracena Flores, Biografias sinteticas de guatemaltecos distinguidos, R evista d e la A c G uatem alteca d e E studios G enealogicos, H eraldicos y Historicos, p. 550; Nettie Lee Benson, The Central American Delegation to the First Constituent Congress o f Mexico, 1822-1823, H ispanic A m erican H istorical R eview 49: 4 (1969), p. 692; Marure, Efem erides, p. 81; Ramiro Ordofiez y Jonama, "Primeras Damas del Reino, de la Republica Federal, del Estado y de la Republica de Guatemala,"
R evista d e la A cadem ia G uatem alteca d e Estudios Genealogicos, H eraldicos y H istoricos, p. 362; Carlos
Melendez Chaverri, Jose Cecilio del Valle, Sabio Centroamericano (San Jose: Libro Libre, 1985), p. 222; B7 Leg. 3480, Exp. 79488, Lista de los C Diputados del Congreso Federal del aiio de 26; B 7 Leg. 3480,
408
Valle, mayor o f Guatemala for most o f 1821, represented Central America in the Mexican congress of 1821-1822, where he also served as Iturbides minister of state and foreign affairs. He was a member o f the second and third interim triumvirates to govern Central America after the break with Mexico, was thrice elected to the federal congress (1823, 1836, 1831) refused to serve as vice-president o f the federation in 1833, and died in 1834 just after his election as federal president. Galvez, an illegitimate child raised in one o f the citys foremost families, was able under the new republican system to hold public office without the paperwork and fees required under the colonial system to "legitimize" a child bom outside wedlock. In addition to serving as the president who insisted on creating a thoroughly liberal social, political and economic legal system, Galvez was a judge, minister in the Federation, and member o f the Guatemalan and federal congresses.1 1 6 The pattern of men serving in municipal, state and federal government posts that was laid out in Guatemala City was repeated in other towns, although at a lesser scale. At least 23 men from the post-independence Sonsonate town council served in either executively appointed office as ministers and governors (jefes politicos; jefes
Exp. 79530, Fechas en que se han tornado su asiento en el Congreso los CC diputados de la legislatura federal de 1831, ff. 3,9, 10. 116 Galvez was left on the doorstep o f Gertrudis Galvez sister o f Manuel and Silverio Galvez Corral, cabildantes in Guatemala City and alcaldes mayores in San Salvador (See Chapter 1). Gertrudis was married to Manuel Fadrique y Goyena, a Spanish coronel who also served as lieutenant alcalde mayor in San Salvador. They had no other children. See the copy o f Galvez' original baptism is in AGCA, A1 Leg. 1949 Exp. 13055, the decision in 1807 by the Guatemala City mayor to apply a royal decree of 1794 to exempt Galvez from his "class" so that he could attend university. In addition to being President of Guatemala (1831 -1838), Galvez represented the department o f Sacatepequez on the JPC in 1821; was a judge in Verapaz and Sacatepequez (1830-1831), Minister o f Government for the Federation (1821, 1828-1829) and deputy in the Guatemalan (1831, 1836, 1839) and Federal (1826, 1829) congresses. See also Ramiro Ordonez y Jonama, Primeras Damas del Reino, de la Republica Federal, del Estado y de la Republica de Guatemala," p. 363.
409
departamentales) or elective office as chiefs o f state (jefes politicos superiors ), legislators, and judges. Tegucigalpa, half-time capital o f Honduras, produced over 50 men who distinguished themselves in state and federation politics between 1821 and 1850. Among the men using municipal positions as a springboard for their political careers were Francisco Morazan, who went from secretary and alderman o f the Tegucigalpa city council to membership in the Honduran government to, finally, presidencies of the Central American federation, El Salvador, and Costa Rica. Dionisio Herrera moved from secretary o f the president o f both Honduras and Nicaragua, and Diego Vigil, president o f both Honduras and El Salvador. Manuel Romero was a respected congressman from Sonsonate, who met with visiting foreigners, including George Alexander Thompson o f Britain, who later served in El Salvadors General Ministry and Council o f State.117 The record o f state and national office holding in these three communities suggest how the republican legislative, judicial and executive branches o f government provided expanded political opportunities for elites from all regions o f Central America. Yet the same record also points to a disproportionate number o f positions o f importance going to men whose communities o f origin were state capitals. District cabecera Sonsonate produced only two executives in El Salvador,118 while the municipalidades and capitals of Tegucigalpa and Guatemala between them served as point o f departure
11' George A. Thompson, Narrative o f an Official Visit to Guatemala (London: J. Murray, 1829), p. 70. 118 Brothers Pedro and Rafel Campo y Pomar were, respectively vice-chief (1846) and interim chief (1841) o f state, and president (1855-1858) o f El Salvador. Manuel Hermerengildo Romero was a Counselor of State (Consejero de Estado), and Pedro Arce, a San Salvador native and long-time Sonsonate resident and municipal also served temporarily as chief o f state (1841). See Appendix S.
410
for almost four dozen men who would go on to be presidents o f the Central American Federation, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Table 7.6 Tegucigalpa Municipales In Executive Office, 1821-1850
Municipal Francisco Ferrera Vicente Gomez Dionisio Herrera Jose Justo Herrera Agapito Lazo Jose Antonio Marquez Position/ Year Vice President, 1833 Acting VP, 1854 President, 1824 President, 1830 President, 18371838 Acting President, 1831 1 Chief, 1831-1832 State Ho ES Ho Nic Ho Municipal Francisco Morazan Position/ Year Consejero Estado, 1827 President, 1832, 1839-40 President, 1842 Provisional Chief, 1842 State Ho Fed ES CR
Ho Ho
Felipe Santiago Reyes Jose Santos del Valle Diego Vigil
Consejo Representative, 1825 Act. Ch. o f State, C Rep, 1830 Acting PE, 1829 PE, 1836-8 Acting PE, 1836-1839
Ho
Ho Ho ES Fed
Gu- Guatemala, ES-E1 Salvador, Ho-Honduras, Nic-Nicaragua, CR-Costa Rica; * - Suplente Sources: See Note 121. Table 7.7 Guatemala City Municipales in Executive Office, 1821-1850
Municipal Manuel Abarca Fco. X. Aguirre Mariano Aycinena Pedro Aycinena Luis Batres y M. Jose Francisco Bamindia Jose Luis Batres M. Beltranena Alejandro Diaz Cabeza de Vaca Andres Dardon Jose Maria Cornejo Joaquin Duran Carlos Esquivel Jose Domingo Estrada Jose Mno Galvez Position/Year Consejero, 1837 Consejero, 1838-9 Chief o f State, 1827-9 Cons., Pres. Int., 1856 Consejero, VP, 1840s Chief o f State, 1823 Chief o f State, 1829 Consejero, 1839 Vice Pres., 1826-1829 Jefe Pol. Superior, 1825 Chief o f State, provis., 1824 Consejero Estado, 1829 Chief o f State, 1829 Jefe Superior, 1830 Interim PE, 1845 President, 1845 Consejero Estado, 1833 Consejero Estado, 1824 Chief o f State, 1827 Chief State, 1831-1837 State Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala? Federation Guatemala Federation Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala El Salvador El Salvador Guatemala Federation Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala
411
Table 7.7 Guatemala City Municipales in Executive Office, 1821-1850 (cont.)

Municipal Jose Farfan Miguel Garcia Granados Jose Antonio Larrave Bernardino Lemus Jose Venancio Lopez Juan Antonio Martinez Positionêar Consejero Estado, 1879 President, 1871-1873 Consejero de Estado, 1824 Consejero de Estado*, 1835 Chief of State, subst., 1842 Exec. Power (PE), int., 1835 Consejero Estado*, 1835 President, 1848 Consejero Estado, 1824, 1829 Consejero de Estado,? 1840s Consejero de Estado, 1853 Consejero de Estado, 1835 Chief o f State, 1830-1 Consejero de Estado, 1827-8 Consejero de Estado, 1838 Chief o f State, 1838-1839 Chief, Cons.ConsuItativo, 1849 Consejero Estado, 1844-1856 Consejero de Estado, 1829 Jefe Provisional, 1834 President, substitute, 1832 Vice Pres., 1833-4, 1834-5 Junta Provs. Consult, 1821 Consejero Estado, 1831 Vice Chief State, 1835 Auxiliary chief, 1836-8 Consejo Representative, 1837 Junta Gubemativa, 1821 Executive (triumvirate), 1824 Executive (Junta Gub.), 1825 Vice President (elected, did not accept), 1833 Pres. 1834 (dies before takes office) State Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala El Salvador Federation Federation Guatemala Guatemala Costa Rica Guatemala Guatemala Federation Federation Federation Federation Federation Federation
Miguel Molina Jose Najera y Batres Manuel F. Pavon Jose Maria Ramirez Antonio Rivera C Rafael Roma Mariano Rivera Paz
Jose Maria Urruela Jose Gregorio Salazar
Jose Valdes Pedro Jose Valenzuela
Clemente Zeceiia Jose Cecilio del Valle
Gu- Guatemala, ES-E1 Salvador, Ho-Honduras, Nic-Nicaragua, CR-Costa Rica; * - Suplente Sources: See Note 121, 115. Although Tegucigalpa and Sonsonate had approximately the same number o f men on their town councils after independence, Tegucigalpa, part-time capital o f the state o f Honduras, produced three times as many men involved in regional rather than
412
local politics. And while Tegucigalpa placed a creditable number o f its sons in government, Guatemalawith its large Spanish and Creole population, the seat o f the federal or Guatemalan state government, a university, mercantile ties to the Caribbean coast, Mexico and Pacificwas in a class o f its own with double the number o f positions and a much greater number o f men in top ministerial and judicial posts. The capitals o f the other states did not have the lock on education that was Guatemalas heritage until the 1840s, when both El Salvador and Honduras organized universities (in San Salvador and Tegucigalpa respectively).119 The visibility of Guatemala Citys town council as a producer o f politicians is likely due in part to preservation of evidence. Information on members o f the Salvadoran and Honduran congresses is sketchy for these years.120 However, the concentration o f education, economy, and political life that this one city experienced for over two hundred years also contributed to its production o f a plethora o f educated and politically active men. Thus while states like El Salvador and Honduras, with fewer lawyers, a more dispersed and less unequally prepared set o f elites, sent men from most o f their communities to represent those communities in state government, Guatemala
119 El Salvadors university was in part the brainchild o f Honduran-bom president Juan Lindo Zelaya (Sal: 1841-1842, Ho: 1847-1852), who also promoted his native states Literary Academy (1837) to a university in 1847 and established a Normal School in Comayagua. Tegucigalpa also was the home of Honduras first military academy, established by Tegucigalpa municipal Jose Antonio Marquez during his time as president o f Honduras (1831-1832). The academy, under the auspices o f Colombian coronel Narciso Benitez graduated, among others, presidents Francisco Ferrera, Santos Guardiola and Florencio Xatruch. Guardiola during his presidency (1856-1862) reopened the Colegio Tridentino of Comayagua, closed by bishop Hipolito Flores. See http://www.hondudata.com/enciclopedia/enciclonew/honduras/ presidentes- /j uanlindo.htm and -/Joseantoniomarquez.htm. 120 Although I was able to find attendance records for the federal and Guatemalan congresses in the AGCA, there seemed to be no such documents in either the AGN or ANH. For the years in which each government published newspapers, it might be possible to reconstruct a greater part o f the information.
413
Citys well-educated, deep-pocketed and long-standing elites held a preponderance o f state posts.1 2 1 Table 7.8: Provincianos in the Guatemala City Town Council, 1809-1850 Syndic Alejandro Diaz C. de Vaca Jose Venancio Lopez Marcial Zebadua Joaquin Duran Fernando Valero y Morales Manuel Valero y Morales Damian Villacorta Jose Santiago Milla Miguel Saisar Pablo Alvarado* Jose Maria Cornejo* U hiy.or ; Year V-;-' . Syndic, GG j polegiode Abogados* 1806, 1809 Nicaragua 1813-1814 1812* 1814, 1820 Nicaragua Tuxtla, Chiapas 1809/1812* 1809 1818* San Salvador, El Salvador 1823-1824 1818* Tegucigalpa, Honduras 1823, 1828 1818 Tegucigalpa, Honduras 1823 1821* Sacatecoluca, El Salvador 1823-1824 1804/1807* 1827 Tegucigalpa, Honduras 1834* Santa Ana, El Salvador 1830-1831 1810/1823 1830 Costa Rica 1809 F 1823-4 R Sonsonate, El Salvador Place o f Origin
Sources: See Appendix K. *Comejo never finished his studies. Alvarado took his degree in medicine.
It is interesting to note that in the years o f the Cortes, and in the years immediately following independence, the syndics, or lawyers, o f Guatemala Citys town council were young lawyers, often from the provinces, who were recent graduates o f the university in Guatemala City. Yet looking at the well-established councils to determine the representation o f municipales in a congress or government only tells part o f the story. The numbers o f former municipales from the range o f cities, towns and villages within state
1 2 1 While impressive, these numbers are likely incomplete. I do not have complete lists o f congressmen and ministers for any government state or federationfrom 1821 to 1850. Central Am ericas states have yet to compile (let alone publish) definitive lists of their early legislative representati-ves and cabinets. Disarray in Honduras archives and destruction o f materials in El Salvadors were matched by disinterest in Guatemala. In the Federal archive, I did find some electoral records, and screening o f deputies by the legislatures, but more importantly, attendance records for many years o f the state and federal congress. Compilations o f constitutions produced lists of deputies for some years. For Guatemala, see particularly AGCA B Legajos 84, 194, and 3480, B12.17 Legajo 224, and C l, Legajos
414
governments was formidable. The congresses o f post-independence Central America, for all o f their flaws and weaknesses, in fact allowed representatives of large and small communities to work together on common political and legislative projects. Guatemalas congress proved the exception rather than the rule as distant districts elected residents o f Guatemala City who had ties in their districts, as often as native sons. Guatemalas ayuntamiento was particularly dense in lawyers, and it was these men who often were elected to the various state and federal congresses to represent not only the capital district, but frequently the other areas o f the state o f Guatemala. To list just a representative sample o f Guatemala City lawyers representing other districts in state and national assemblies: Table 7.9: Guatemala City Municipales who represented other districts in Congress Congress Verapaz (AL, 1836) Chimaltenango (AC, 1839-1842); Guatemala (AL 1829, 1853) Manuel Antonio Arrivillaga y Zepeda Totonicapan (AC, 1842) Jose Luis Batres y Munoz Peten (AC, 1840-1842) Huehuetenango (AL, 1833) Mariano Cordova Jose Domingo Estrada Verapaz (1839-1842), Chiquimula (AL, 1843); Chimaltenango (ANC, 1823) Buenaventura Lambur Totonicapan (AL, 1829-1830), Sacatepequez (AL, 1831), Solola (AL, 1836-7) * Guatemalan Congress (AL=Legislative Assembly; AC- Constituent Assembly) unless noted. Source: See Note 121. Lawyer Manuel Jose Jauregui y Jauregui Jose Venancio Lopez In El Salvador, as in Honduras, districts preferred to elect local men to represent them. While El Salvador does not have a record o f all the members o f its early legislatures, a compilation o f presidents of the congresses o f 1824-1850 yields a significant participation o f municipales from all over the country. While colonial
36, 38, 56, 111, 130and 144.
415
cabeceras San Vicente, San Miguel and particularly San Salvador dominate the presidency, numerous smaller towns saw their representatives elevated to this honor.
Table 7.10: Municipales who served as Presidents of El Salvador Congresses, 1824-1850 Town Ahuachapan Sonsonate Metapan Santa Tecla Santa Ana San Miguel San Vicente San Salvador Deputy Town Deputy Gotera Hermenegildo Gutierrez Norberto Moran Sensuntepeque Juan Antonio Fuentes Manuel Rivera Lucas Jarquin *Jose Manuel Guillen Usulutan Chinameca Cipriano Samayoa *Miguel Saizar Manuel Mencia Carlos Antonio Meany, Jose Maria Cisneros Mariano Prado, *Leon Quinteros, Jose Maria Cornejo, Miguel Elisondo Benito Gonzalez y Martinez, Juan Jose Pineda y Aldafia, Juan Fomos, Juan Manuel Rodriguez, *Migue1Mendoza, Clemente Mixco, Domingo Antonio Lara, Toribio Lara, M. Morales Wading, Juan Uriarte, Manuel Zepeda, Mariano Funes * = Lawyer, M.=Mariano Source: Guion Historico, passim.
The presence of the same men in both city councils and congresses shows that if municipal service was not a prerequisite for achieving other political posts, both kinds o f political office attracted the same and same kind o f man. Furthermore, towns were willing to send the same men to represent them in the capital that they elected to administer the schools, finances, and hospitals at home. It seems likely that some o f the overlap derives from a finite number of men both financially able and willing to undertake the generally unpaid task of political service. It is equally true, however, that individuals like municipal Jacinto Villavicencio, Manuel Menciason o f a Sonsonate mayorwho donated his library to Santa Anas municipality, and Jose Campo y Pomarbrother and son o f Sonsonate municipales- who initiated the construction o f a new hospital and the restoration of the parish church o f Sonsonate, also sought out the
416
posts.
P2
This synthetic overview cannot hope to provide an examination o f the motivations o f individuals whose careers either began or ended in the municipalidades o f Guatemala City, Tegucigalpa or Sonsonate. However, it does suggest that the creation of new institutions o f governmentpresidents, ministers, congressmen, and bureaucratsdid not appreciably diminish elite interest in municipal government in the chief cities o f Central America. Rather, the same men who once had purchased municipal office to show loyalty and to secure additional, salaried positions from the Spanish crown continued to view the city council as a worthy position. At the same time, men of the former castes (castas ) also saw in the city council a step on the path to respectability and power, taking advantage o f the new citizenship laws to assume municipal positions and to take their place on the political stage. As shown above, in some cases, it seems young lawyers practiced their skills in the positions o f syndic and returned as aldermen or mayors later in their careers. In other cases, educated artisans took their seats. In all cases, men who wished to influence taxation, the assignment o f marketplaces, the accrual o f access to city lands (ejidos) and city-state relations found that mayor, alderman and syndic o f principal city councils were still important government posts that provided practical and material benefits.
Guion H istdrico d e l P o d er L eg islativo d e E l Salvador, / Parte: C onstituyentes-L egislaturas, Sinteses Biograficos de su s presidentes, 1 8 2 2 -1 8 7 0 (San Salvador: Publicacion de la Asamblea Legislativa, 1966),
passim. Jacinto Villavicencio: AMS, Caja Juzgado 1821-9, #2, Arbitrios q propone el sindico...., ff. 1011 December 1828.
417
Conclusion In the tumultuous era o f the 1820s and 1830s Central America went from being a republic of cities to a republic o f states. If achievement o f the goal creating one Central American people united under the same law, receded with each civil war that spilled over one states borders to involve its neighbors or federal authorities, the process o f creating states, with a single sovereignty residing in the state government rather than the cities and towns that served as district and department capitals took root and began to flourish. This change in the understanding o f the foundations o f political identity does not mean that the city was abandoned as source o f political authority. Building the institutions to govern a nation, or at least the inhabitants o f states, in nineteenth century Central America was a project which battling elites in the capital(s) attempted to communicate to the countryside in a variety o f ways. One way was to adapt and expand colonial institutions such as the town council into part o f a new governmental system that provided an ample space for political participation to a wider range o f the population. Another way was to involve small towns in the project o f supporting or rejecting challenges to the new system. The municipality remained in the 1820s and 1830s the principal political institution in most settlements, the official arm o f the state and the means through which any settlement had to filter its political activity in order to be recognized by higher authorities or neighboring towns. For the bigger towns, the continuing emphasis on municipal government led town councils to behave as they had in the past, as political bodies with the authority to take
418
important political decisions, from whether to accept a new state or federal government to whether to withhold or provide taxes or soldiers as required by law. This retention of the practice o f a city republica helped create a political environment in which civil war became endemic. For smaller towns, the tension between state and federation, and between important district capitals, led to an opposite approach. The smaller towns of Central America sought out state authority as a means to mediate local conflict, much in the way the Spanish imperial agents had functioned for them in the past. What we learn from the hiccups, from the points where authorities o f the countryside had issues they could not resolve locally, is that to a large extent, the grafts o f liberal ideology onto colonial institutions worked, at least at a functional level. Numerous town councils were established, and the municipales elected to office. Governors and judges accrued authority and learned to appeal thorny issues, such as local obstruction of justice, to the supposedly more powerful capital. For both executive appointees and locally constituted authorities, the center continued to serve a purpose. Towns, governors and priests used the center selectively to achieve certain improvements or advantages in their local environments, or to rid a town or parish o f an unwelcome individual, invoking their identities as proponents o f new political ways to gain access to services from the central state. The successor governments o f the Kingdom of Guatemala had its uses and the towns and priests o f the Republic o f Central America and the states o f Guatemala and El Salvador determined to access them. Over time, they learned to identify with state and not national governments, and even to address their capitals through the states local representatives, judge and governor.
419
What state was called back into being by the towns, governors and priests o f Central America? Looking through the lens o f local, we clearly see that it was not the colonial state where authority came from outside the territory o f Central America. Nor was it a sovereign state o f every village, as Argentine politician Domingo Faustino Sarmiento sarcastically commented, a political vacuum in which no group or institution could govern.123 God, Union, Liberty was a motto taken seriously not just by Central Americas founding fathers, but by the towns and governors o f the new country, and its senior clerics as well. The countryside wanted a state capable o f mediating between its local powers, a state that worked with the church hierarchy to keep the peace between town, governor and priest, a state that lived up to the promises it made in terms o f citizenship and its rights. Rural communities had more to offer the fledgling republican governments than challenge through uprisings; they wanted the responsibility spelled out in laws and political broadsheets. Elected town councils that took on the role o f mediator between local interests and central government cannot be neatly categorized as resisting republican government and its reforms. Uprising was the tool of last resort, undertaken in Guatemala and El Salvador only a decade after unwelcome government reforms, added on top o f political instability, made the living situation unbearable. Future studies o f the conflicts between capital and countryside or church and state should look not only at the chasms but also at the bridges constructed to cross them.
1 2 3 Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, Argiropolis ([Buenos A ires]: Secretaria de Cultura de la Nacion : A-Z Editora, 1994), p. 77.
420
However, the municipalidad o f Central America did experience the reduction in political status that the consolidation o f state government demanded. The 1825 state constitutions made clear that the new states were composed o f their pueblos , in much the same way as the states made up the federation. By the late 1830s, however, leader conceived o f their states not as a composite o f pueblos, or communities, but as a pueblo, or people. The ideology that a political civilization or community found legitimacy in the city as republic was coming to an end. The republic would, in future, be the state, and for all its administrative, judicial and political importance the city would in future represent local government in a state hierarchy.
421
Conclusion In 1846, the Guatemala City ayuntamiento had a problem. An Englishman by the name o f Frederick Crowe had established a school in their city. Not only did Crowe attract upper-class students to his elementary class and prove English lessons to college students, but the Protestant missionary was also encouraging Guatemalans to read the scripture for themselves rather than receiving the word o f God through their priests. The council was concerned, for their mandate made them responsible for primary education in the city. It determined to shut him down. Crowe, however, had powerful allies. He held his school in the house o f an important Guatemalan lawyer and determined to fight the council through use o f the law. First, an examination o f his pupils proved their learning. When the city fathers still insisted Crowe close his school on the grounds that he was illegally practicing his non-Catholic religion in public, the missionary took his case to the Guatemalan courts. The state justice system supported him; the minister and teacher was breaking no laws. Apparently vindicated, Crowe resumed his teaching. But the city council, supported by the sternly disapproving church, had not exhausted its options. Together, the two institutions convinced the Guatemalan caudillo, Rafael Carrera, to expel him. The most Crowes good friends and students in the capital were able to do was to bring him a horse to speed him on his way to the countrys Caribbean coast. They, and the law, were powerless to effectuate his return. City and church combined could still coerce the state.1
1 Frederick Crowe, The Gospel in Central America (London: Charles Gilpin, 1850), Part 3, pp. 552-584.
422
If Central America had passed from being a republic o f cities in the sixteenth century to a republic o f states in the nineteenth, it had not abandoned the tradition of municipal power. Guatemala City, as capital o f the state o f Guatemala, had unusual authority but it was not alone. The city council o f Sonsonate (El Salvador) on three different occasions ignored directions from the state government to exempt a Frenchman, Bertrand Save, from municipal office because serving in a foreign government jeopardized his French citizenship.2 Indirect municipal power remained intact into the 1840s, as the institution o f the city government remained one of three pillars of Central American government. Yet, over the course o f the tumultuous decades following independence, a concerted move was underway to create a new ideology that moved political identity away from the city or townbeyond the vecindad o f the colonial political system to the greater society operating under each states laws. Legislators and leaders moved from fostering municipal identity to relying on the concept o f conciudadanos or fellow citizens of all o f the residents o f a state or o f the federation (depending on the case). For such citizens who identified with their state and not simply their town of origin would act in concert against an outside threat, like the invasion o f a neighboring state or outside threat, like the American filibuster William Walker in the 1850s. By the 1840s, it was no longer the pueblos that leaders and demagogues appealed to but to one pueblo in their exhortations for peace, or cooperation, or fund-raising. Centroamericanos! Guatemaltecos! Salvadoreftos! Hondureftos! These were the rallying terms. It was the
2 Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres (Paris), Correspondance Consulaire, Guatemala, Volume 2 :1844-
423
people, and no! peoples, o f Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala or the Federation who were the subject o f the discourse. When Rafael Miranda, Minister General o f the Federation, addressed an appeal to his fellow citizens in 1845 -Centro-americanos! he exclaimed he wanted to convince them that the sacrifices o f the pueblos o f the Federation were not in vain. But the pueblos he evoked were not the towns that had recovered their sovereignty with independence from Spain, but the pueblos.. .[and] the legislatures that represent them. Legislatures represented states, not towns. It was states, and not their towns, that had agreed to a pact o f federation. So it was to the states (Estados ) Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemalaand not their component political institutions or districts that the minister referred to in his speech as fighting, or cooperating, or otherwise acting. Local revolt had been demoted to the work o f factions, not towns or peoples. They definitely no longer emanated from a legitimate source o f political authority and no longer received the same negotiated response.3 Nor was the ideological shift present only in official discourse and documents. When the Reverend Father Dr. Tomas Suazo, professor of theology at the University o f San Carlos, preached the sermon commemorating twenty years o f independence from Spain on 15 September 1841, he compared the people of Guatemala to the people o f Israel -a nation. But Guatemala was an independent people {pueblo), that may elect its rulers from among its own sons; to give itself laws according to its needs, and with
1845, pp. 235-249v. 3 Rafael Miranda, Alocucion: Proyecto de Reforma, Esposicion dirigda al Consejo (Guatemala: Imprenta de la Aurora, 1845). The copy I consulted was in the Harvard-Widener Library, Call No. SA 3815.10.
424
respect to its circumstances that a wise and prudent legislator should keep in sig h t4 The move to associate the citizens o f the state o f Guatemala as a common people, rather than a community o f city-based peoples, was well underway. By the 1830s, even the common people had learned to speak in terms o f states and not towns. In San Vicente (El Salvador), a man disaffected with the Federation was quoted as having told his drinking companions on Christmas Day, Boys, dont be fools. The states o f Guatemala, Costa Rica and El Salvador have engaged not to be of the Federation, in the same way that out o f five sons o f one mother, two obey her and three do not.5 Whereas until the 1820s, the cities m ight have been the sons o f the Spanish mother, and politics was lived in terms o f the decisions o f cities, by the 1830s the existence o f states as the location o f political legitimacy had been generally accepted. The city as republic had been replaced by the m ore elusive, intangible state, or state government, as the official place in which an individual belonged. It would, however, take more than one generation for the idea o f a truly national political community to permeate Central America, regardless o f whether the nation or people imagined was a Guatemalan or federal one. Yet, sometime during the debacle o f the 1820s and 1830s, when association with local agendas led to civil wars and failed to consolidate durable governments, the language o f the sovereign town or city ceased to
4 R.P. Dr. Fr. Tomas Suaso, Serm on predicado e l quince d e se tie m b r e (sic) d e m il ochocientos c u a re n ta y
uno. a n iversario d e nuestra independencia d e l g o b ie m o e s p a n o l en la sa n ta iglesia catedral d e G uatem ala (Guatemala: Imprenta del Ejercito, 1841)
5 AGN, Caja 3 , Seccion Antigua, Correspondencia oficial, 1821-1871, #22-3. San Vicente, 25 December 1834, Juzgado de Primera Instancia: Contra Marselio Arriola po r expresiones subversivas.
425
serve as a rallying cry. The goal o f subsequent leaders from federalist Morazan to ardent states independence promoter Rafael Carrera, was to knit the different ethnic and regional groups into one political community that associated with the central state and not just with their local councils. From pueblos to pueblo, we might deem this project, for this was the shift in the language they used. When or whether such a change took root outside the circle o f the men who proposed it, however, has yet to be determined. The rise o f the competing national republic did not, however, mean the demise of the city as government institution, agent or authority. Despite the loss o f its status as a republic, the city and its council would remain the principle administrative unit that linked individual to state. If the leaders o f Central America wished to abandon a republic o f cities in favor o f a republic o f states, they nonetheless held fast to the organization o f political community that made all official representation start in a city council. Two hundred years after Antonio Fuentes y Guzman penned his paean to the city as part o f his history o f the Central American conquest, Mariano Aycinena conservative, former president o f Guatemala and municipal o f Guatemala City underlined an identical belief at a time when the composition of city councils and the procedures for selecting their members was under debate in Guatemala in 1845:
426
One o f the principal defects o f the Spanish Constitution, that here we have wanted to follow blindly, is to overturn the municipal regime o f the populations, established by use and custom, attempting to set up a uniform system that the ignorant multitudeover which habit holds the only moral force cannot understand with ease or rapidity. It is something that, evidently, has always been felt, particularly in modem times: when the municipal regime is suddenly upset, the public calm is altered, because [the change] directly attacks the primary base o f the social order, which is the individual (particular) regimen o f the pueblos established by themselves, learned by tradition and rooted in habit. One can see that one should not modify the municipal regime, base o f all republican government.6 Since the conquest, politicians and reformers had turned time and again to the structures and organization o f municipal government as the means to improve order and administration in the state. Although different political groups or generations might differ on the extent to which full municipal government should extend to the poor and indigenous communities o f the isthmus, they never doubted that the municipal regime, however constituted, was the primary bulwark o f the state, and the authority which could speak for a community when it interacted with governor, diocese or congress. In the mid-nineteenth century, there remained the hope that if the pueblos could fulfill their duties and obligations, a new pueblo might emerge. Yet, the central role o f the city, or comunidad, or municipio was never in doubt. This tension between pueblos and pueblo would inform the relationship between city and state governments, communities
6 Cited in Ramon A. Salazar, Mariano de Aycinena, (Hombres de la Independencia) (Guatemala: Editorial del Ministerio de Educacion Publica, 1952), pp. 74-75
427
and their distant leaders, throughout the nineteenth century. The base o f all republican government had too long, and too strong, a history to suffer a different fate. As Frederick Crowe found out to his detriment, city government had a way o f winning out.
428
APPENDIX A Political & religious status of Spanish Cities: Kingdom of Guatemala, 1523-1821 M unicipality Guatemala (Santiago) (Asuncion) Santiago (Antigua) in 1799 revived its town coucil Status Ciudad Political Position Capital: Kingdom of Guatemala (1549-1821) Capital of Alcaldia mayor, Sacatepequez Institutions Preseat Capt. Gral, Audiencia, Casa de Moneda (1731-3), Admin Gral de Alcabala (1763), Factoria de tabacos (1767), Admin de Correos (1768), Contaduria Mayor (1771); Militia (1781); Consulado de Comercio (1794) Sociedad Economica (17951799), Gazeta de Guatemala (1797-1816), Colegiode Abogados(1810) Alcalde Mayor; Diputado Cons. Cajas Reales (1587), Tesorero Corregidor, estafeta de correos, Fact tab,admin de polvora, salitre y naipes, receptoria de alcabalas, subdel. de tierras, Dip. Consular Alcalde Mayor (to 1787), Intend. (1787-1821), Dip. Cons., Estafeta de Correos, Caja Subaltema, Alcb. (1763), Admin tabacos (1767) Intendant & Asesor, Tesoria Rl, Contaduria, Estafeta Corrreos, Admin Alcabala (1763), Fact Tabaco (1767), Dip Cons, 2 bat mil, 1534 plazas (1781) Subdelegado, Diputado consular, Estafeta de Correos Subdelegado, Diputado Consular, Montepio de Afiil (176x), Fact. Tabacos, Estafeta de Correos
Sonsonate
Villa
Quezaltenango
Pueblo
Capital of Alcaldia Mayor (1552-1821) Port (Acajutla); 21 pueblos in 8 parishes Capital of Corregimiento (1523-1821)
Ciudad Real de Chiapa
Villa Ciudad
San Salvador
Villa Ciudad
S Miguel de la Frontera San Vicente de Austria, o Lorenzana
Villa Ciudad Pueblo Villa Ciudad
Capital of Alcaldia Mayor (AM) (15291786); from 1787, of partido & intendancy, w. 56 pueblos in 20 parishes Capital of Alcaldia Mayor (1542-1786) Partido & Intendancy (1786-1821), 50 pueblos in 11 parishes (1526 RO/1528 founded) Capital of Partido in AM S Salvador: 2 villlas, 40 pueblos valles & haciendas, in 7 parishes Capital of Partido in AM S Salvador, 5 parishes, 1 vill and 12 pueblos, with haciendas & obrajes
429
APPENDIX A (Continued) Political & religions status of Spanish Cities: Kingdom of Guatemala, 1523*1821 Municipality Sta Ana Grande S Pedro Zula Xeres de la Frontera S Jorge Olancho Tegucigalpa (1580) (1762) S ta tu I Political Position Pueblo Capital of partido in AM S Salvador, 19 pueblos in 6 parishes Ciudad Cabildo exting. en 1800 Pueblo (Choluteca) Villa (San Jorge Olanchito) Villa Institutions Present Subdelegado; Dip Cons, estaf. de correos, reg milicas, 567 pi Subdelegado Subdelegado
Truxillo en Honduras Gracias a Dios Leon de Nicaragua
Granada Nueva Segovia Realejo Rivas Cartago Villanueva Villa Vieja
1 co militia of 330s; Subdeleg. Real de Capital AM, then Prtido, Subdelegado de Int., Caja real Minas then AM (1580-1788; (subalt. de Com), Dip. Cons., Estaf. Correos, milicias- 767 1812-1821): 1 villa, 6 Villa lugares de ladinos, 17 plzas, squadron of caballeria., pueblos de indios, 13 Casa de Moneda (1780-1795) minerales, valles & haciendas, 10 parishes Comandancia, Port; Villa Comandante militar, Exting abandoned after Dutch Subdelegado, dip cons, pirate attack, 1643; Reest destacamto de cpo vet., Estafeta de Correos, Caja Rl. repop. 1789 Ciudad Capital, Gbno Honduras Subdelegado, diputado (1536-1542); Auddelos consular, Estafeta de correos, Confines ( 1542-1549) Factoria de tabacos (1802) Ciudad Capital of Gobiemo (Intendant, Caja real de int, 1786), partido and Estafeta de Correos, Fact Intendancy (1787-1821), Tabacos, Admin alcabala (1763), Dip Cons, batallon of 2 villas, 6 pueblos, many valles y haciendas de milicias of 767 plazas Ciudad Capital of Partido in Subdelegado, Dip. consular, Gbno. of Nicaragua: 1 Admin tabacos (1767) villa, 17 pueblos Ciudad Capital of Partido in Subdelegado de Int., milicias Reest Gbno. of Nicaragua: 1 of 747 plazas, Dip. consular villa, 5 pueblos Villa Capital of Partido, port, Subdelegado, Estafeta de villa,mulatto carpinters correos Villa Title of villa 1783 (Managua) Ciudad Capital of Gobiemo Estafeta de correos Reest (15657-1821), 3 villas, 10 pueblos Villa Also called: San Jose Villa
430
APPENDIX A (continued): Political & religious status of Spanish Cities: Kingdom of Guatemala, 1523-1821 M unicipality Religions Position Guatemala Diocese (1534-1743), and then Archdiocese of Guatemala (Santiago)/ (Asuncion) (1744-) cabildo ecclesiastico, colegio Tridentino, monasteries (D, F, M, SJDD), 4 parishes Sonsonate cabecera of parish, 4 monasteries (D, F, M, SJDD) , Diocese: Guatemala Quezaltenango Franciscam Monastery; cabecera of parish, Diocese: Guate. Ciudad Real de Seat, Diocese Chiapas (1541-), cabildo eccles., Chiapa colegioTridentino, colegio Jesuita, monasteries (D, F, M, SJDD), hospital, convent, cabecera of parish San Salvador cabecera of parish, with pretensions to have a diocese; 3 monasteries (D, F, M), 60 cofradias, Diocese: Guatemala San Miguel de la 2 monasteries (F, M), cabecera of parish, Diocese: Guatemala Frontera San Vicente de cabecera of parish, monastery (F), Diocese: Guatemala Austria, o Lorenzana Santa Ana Grande cabecera of parish, Diocese: Guatemala Valladolid o Seat of Diocese of Comayagua (1561-), cabildo ecclesiastico, Comayagua colegio Tridentino, monsteries (F, M, SJDD), hospital Xeres de la Frontera cabecera of parish, Monastery (M), Diocese: Comayagua San Jorge de Olancho cabecera of parish, Diocese: Comayagua San Pedro Zula cabecera of parish, Diocese: Comayagua Tegucigalpa Monasteries (F, M), cabecera of parish, Diocese: Comayagua Truxillo en Honduras Seat, Diocese of Honduras (1520s-1561); Cabecera of parish, Dio: Com. Gracias a Dios cabecera of parish, monastery (M), Diocese: Comayagua Leon de Nicaragua Seat, Diocese of Nicaragua (1531- 1821), cabildo ecclesiastico, colegio Tridentino, monasteries (F, M (2), univ. (1812), SJDD, hospital de Sta Catalina, cabecera of parish Granada 3 monasteries (F, M, SJDD), hospital, cabecera of parish; Diocese: Nicarag. Nueva Segovia cabecera of parish, Diocese: Nicaragua Realejo cabecera of parish; Diocese: Nicaragua Rivas cabecera of parish, Di: Nicaragua Cartago cabecera of parish, 1 monastery (F), Diocese: Nicaragua Villanueva cabecera of parish, Di: Nicaragua Villa Vieja cabecera of parish, Di: Nicaragua Monasteries: F = Franciscan, D = Domincan, M = Mercedarian, SJDD = San Juan de Dios;
431
SOURCES Sources: Juarros, Compendio de la Historia del Reino de Guatemala (Guatemala, 1981), passim. Taplin, Middle American Governors, (Metuchen, NJ, 1976), passim; Bemabe Fernandez Hernandez, El Reino de Guatemala durante el gobiemo de Antonio Gonzalez Saravia, 1801-1811 (Guatemala, 1993), passim. Truxillo (1789): Gonzalez, AGI Guatemala 453 and RC Nov 18, 1807, AGCA A1.2 Leg. 2194, Exp. 21225. Rivas title, Ricardo Magdaleno, Titulos de Indias (Valladolid, 1954), p. 283. Choluteca: .http: www//2.data.com/enciclopedia enciclo.new/ honduras/ mapas/municipios/Choluteca/Munidecholuteca.htm. Tegucigalpa cedula de ereccion in AGI Guatemala 623.
432
APPENDIX B: Table of Ayuntamientos of Colonial Central America (Kingdom of Guatemala), 1523-1807 Municipality Status Ciudad Founded Composition in 1646 (known additions/changes) GUATEMALA (depends directly on the audiencia) 1524 2 AO, AR, AM, Dep gral, 12 RR, Provincial SH, Alcaldes de SH, Tes Gral Papel sellado (fm 1643), (1776) Esno Publico y del cabildo, Diptn, y Alcabalas (RR Varied: stabilized at 20, 1644) 2 AO, AM, 6 RR, Provl de Sta Hdd y 2 ASH, Esno 1552 pub y del cabildo 2 AO, at least 4 RR (probably 6) **** 1805 1528 1526 1543/5 1530 1658 1807 1768 1526 1540 1530 1536 1524 (1807) 1536 2 AO, AM, 8 RR, R yDG, Esno pub y cabildo Alcaldia Mayor SAN SALVADOR 2 AO, AR, AM, 8 RR, DG, Provincial y Ales SH, Esno del Juzgado Mayor y visitas 2 AO, AR, AM, DG, 6 RR, RyDG, Esnopub y del cabildo 2 AO, 4 RDs, y 2 RS, Esno publico y de cabilda 2 AO, 6 RR **** Alcaldia Mayor TEGUCIGALPA (1768) 2 AO, 6 RS, also AR, AM, AP, DG (RC 17 July 1768) 2 AO, AM, DG, 2 RR, Esno publico (Choluteca) GOBIERNO DE HONDURAS 2 AO, AM, AM, DG, 4 RR, Provincial HDd y 2 ASH 2 AO, AM, 2 RR, esno pub 2 AO, AM, 2 RR, esno pub y del cabildo (1536/S Pedro Pto Caballos) 2 AO, AM, 3 RR, Provincial HDD, Esno pub del cabildo y registros 2 AO, 1 S (RC)*** (reestablish) 2 AO, AM, Alferez Mayor, DG, 4 RR, Provincial Hdd, Alclades de Hdd, Esno pub y del cabildo
Guatemala (Santiago) (Asuncion) Sonsonate Quezaltenango Ciudad Real de Chiapa San Salvador San Miguel de la Frontera San Vicente de Austria Sta. Ana Grande Tegucigalpa Xeres de la Frontera Valladolid or Comayagua San Jorge de Olancho San Pedro Zula Truxillo en Honduras Gracias a Dios
Villa Pueblo Ciudad Villa Ciudad Ciudad Villa Pueblo Villa Villa Ciudad Villa Villa Ciudad Ciudad
433
APPENDIX B (continued) Table of Ayuntamientos of Colonial Central America (Kingdom of Guatemala), 1523*1807 Leon de Nicaragua Granada Nueva Segovia Cartago Realejo Rivas Ciudad Ciudad Ciudad Ciudad Villa Villa 1523 1523 -1530 * (1809) -1565 1534 Post1646 GOBIERNO DE NICARAGUA 2AO, AM, AR, 6 RR, Ales de Hdd, Esno pub y del cabildo 2 AO, AM, AR, DG, 6 RR, Ales SH, Esno pu y del cabildo 2 AO, AM, Alf Mzy, 6 RR, DG, Esno Pub y Cabildo 2 AO, AM, AR, DG, Esno pub de gbno del juzgo mayor y visitas de la rl caja, minas y registros y abaluaciones 2 AO, Alguacil y guarda mayor del puerto, AR, DG, 3 RR, Esno cab y Registros
KEY: AO - Alcalde Ordinario, RS - Regimiento Sencillo, RD - Regimiento Doble, AM Regidor/Alguacil Mayor, AR - Regidor/Alferez Real, DG - Regidor/Depositario General (after 1799, a RS), RR - All regimientos (RS& RD), ASH - Alcalde de la Santa Hermandad, AP Alcalde Provincial de la Sta. Hdd, Esno-Escribano All ayuntamientos name: Procurador Sindico, Mayordomo, Fiel Executor, Corredor, Mojonero, Pregonero, Porteros. SOURCES: Principal information compiled from Domingo Juarros Compendio de la Historia del Reino de Guatemala, esp. pp 232-236, Taplin, Middle American Governors (Metuchen, NJ, 1976). Juarros 1646 information came from a 1646 report of Juan Diez de la Calle, an official of the Council of the Indies. Tegucigalpa cedula de ereccion in AGI Guatemala 623. * Nueva Segovia was founded by Pedrarias Davila, who died in 1531. Therefore, it dates to pre 1531. See Juarros. ** S Vicente created at request RIVAS: Simancas *** Trujillo reestablished, RC Nov 18, 1807. AGCA A1.2 L 2194, E 21225 **** Santa Anas first sale of regimientos authorizes the sale of 6 regimientos dobles y sencillos, Titulo de Jose Mariano Castro, regidor y alcalde provincial, 31 July 1811. Titles for 3 RD and 1 RS were issued for Quesaltenango, 11 July 1815. AGI Guatemala 446.
434
APPENDIX C: Table of Political Divisions of the Reyno de Guatemala, 1654-1796 1654

Ciudad Real (AM) Soconusco (G)
1778
1788
Ciudad Real Soconusco Tuxtia Chimaltenango Sacatepequez Escuinta y Guazacapan Verapaz Sonsonate Suchitepeques Solold Totonicapan Leon Nicoya Matagalpa Realejo y Subtiava Costarrica Quesaltenango Chiquimula y Zacapa San Salvador Comayagua Tegucigalpa y Choluteca
Ciudad Real (P) (AM) Soconusco (P) (G) Tuxtia (P) (AM) Valle de Guatemala (C) Chimaltenango (AM) Sacatepequez (AM) Escuintla (C) Escuintla (P) (AM) Vera Paz (AM) Verapaz (P) (AM) Sonsonate (AM) Sonsonate (P) (AM) Suchiltepeques (AM) San Antonio Such. (P) (AM) Soloia o Tecpanatitlan (C) Atitdn o Soloia (P) (AM) Totonicapan (C) Totonicapan (P) (AM) Nicaragua (G) Leon (P) (G y Cmd.a) Nicoya (AM) Nicoya (C) (C) Moninbo (C) (N) Subtiava o Quezaltepeque (C) Matagalpa (C) Matagalpa (C) Realejo (C) Costa Rica (G) Quezaltenango (C) Chiquimula (C) Realejo (C) (C) Costa Rica (P) (G) Quezaltenango (P) Chiquimula y Zacapa (P) (C) S Salvador (P) (AM) Honduras (P) (G) Tegucigalpa (P) (AM)
San Salvador (AM) Comayagua (G) Tegucigalpa (AM) San Andres de Zaragosa (AM) (S) Amatique (AM) (S) Peten (Presidio) Chontales (C) (N) Golfo (presidio) Atitlan (C) San Juan (Castillo) Guazacapdn (C) Acasaguastdn (C) Quesalguaque (C) (N) Tencoa (C) (Com) Quepo (C) (CR) Chim'po (C) (CR) Pacaca (C) (CR) Ujarraz (C) (CR)
Segobia San Miguel
G = Gobiemo, AM = Alcaldia Mayor, C = Corregimiento, P = Provincia, S = Suppressed, CR = Absorbed into Costa Rica, 1660, N = Absorbed into Nicaragua, 1660, and Com = Absorbed into Comayagua, 1660.
435
APPENDIX C (continued): Table of Political Divisions of the Reyno de Guatemala, 1654-1796 -1790** G obiernos Ciudad Real (AM) Soconusco (G) Tustla (AM) Chimaltenango (AM) S acatepequez (AM)** Escuintla (AM) V erapaz (AM) S onsonate (AM) S Antonio Suchitepequez Solola (AM) Totonicapan (AM) Nicaragua (Gbno) Nicoya (AM) Matagalpa (AM) Realejo y Subtiava (AM) Costarrica (G) Q uesaltenango (AM) Chiquimula (AM) S Salvador (AM) C om ayagua (G) Tegucigalpa (AM) 1796 Reyno de Guatemala Intendencia d e Cdd Real l-CR l-CR AM Chimaltenango AM S acatepequez AM Escuintla AM V erapaz AM Sonsonate AM S. Antonio Suchitepques AM Solold AM Totonicapan Intendencia de Leon l-N l-N
r )
l-N Goviemo de Costarrica C Q uesaltenango C Chiquimula y Z acapa Intendencia de S Salvador Intendencia de C om avaaua 1788-1817: l-C; 1817-1821: AM Military outposts: Peten (Castillo) Castillo del Peten Golfo (Castillo) Fuerte de S Carlos S Juan (Castillo) Omoa Truxillo Cabo de Gracias Rio Tinto Roatan G = Gobiemo, AM = Alcaldia Mayor, C = Corregimiento, P = Provincia, S = Suppressed, CR = Absorbed into Costa Rica, 1660, N = Absorbed into Nicaragua, 1660, and Com = Absorbed into Comayagua, 1660. I-CR = partido o f Intendancy o f Ciudad Real (Chiapas), I-N = partido of intendancy o f Nicaragua; I-C = intendancy o f Comayagua
436
Sources: Column: 1654. Glen W.Taplin, Middle American Governors (Metuchen, NJ: 1972), pp. 75-6. In 1660, 8 corregimientos were incorporated into larger gobiemos: 4 into Costa Rica (CR), 1 into Com ayagua (Com) and 3 into Nicaragua (N). Around 1703, the AM o f Amatique and S Andres de Sarragosa were suppressed (S); Guazacapan and Escuintla joined to form an AM; Atitan and Tecpanatitan/Solola joined to form the AM o f Solola. In 1753, the Valle o f Guatemala was divided into two alcaldias mayores, Chimaltenango and Sacatepequez. Taplin considers Totonicapan a corregimiento, but primary sources determine that the joint district o f Totonicapan and Gueguetenango (Huehuetenango) is an alcaldia mayor. See for example AGI Guatemala 446, Titulos de Juan Vacaro (1764) and Pedro Antonio Maceyra (1802). Column 1778: Anonimo, Noticias del Reyno de Guatemala, 1778, Cuadro 2. Cargos politicos superiores y sueldos anuales, 1778. Published in the Academia de Geografia e Historia de Guatemala. LXTV (1990): 252. Column: 1788: AGCA A3.16 246-4912, f 34. Partidos que Tributan. Notes that there are 655 pueblos in 23 partidos. In these, 99,156 tributarios p a y . 177532 pses 5 1/2 rr o f which the crown gets 164, 713 pp 2rr. Local military defense gets 9751 pp 3 Vi rr, the church gets 3067 pp 7 1/2 rr as its diezmo (tithe). Per Taplin, Middle American Governors, the Intendancy of Nicaragua included the former government o f Nicaragua, the alcaldia mayor o f Nicoya, and the corregimiento o f Realejo and Matagalpa, and had 6 subdelegados. Honduras, formed from the government o f Comayagua and alcaldia mayor o f Tegucigalpa, had 9 subdelegados. Chiapas included the government o f Soconusco and alcaldias mayores o f Ciudad Real and Tuxtia, with 11 subdelegados. San Salvador had no territorial changes, incorporating the former alcaldia mayor o f San Salvador, and had 14 subdelegaciones. Column ~1790. AGCA A3.2 Legajo 1355, Expediente 22716. No date. This is a list o f provinces o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala when Juan Hurtado and Ignacio Guerra were both escribanos. The original document also includes a list o f the religious orders present in the province at the time, as well as the principal branches (ramos) o f the Real Hacienda. Column 1796: AGCA A1.25 Legajo 2603, Expediente 4389. Mails o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala.
437
APPENDIX D Distances between different Cities of Central America, 1794 (leagues) Distancias de esta Capital a las demis Ciudades del Reyno Ciudad de San Salvador 60 Ciudad de Gracias a Dios 81 Ciudad de Comayagua 117 Ciudad de San Miguel 97 Ciudad de Granada 183 Ciudad de Cartago 216 Ciudad de Ciudad Real 400 Ciudad de Coban 140 Ciudad de Campeche 287 Puerto de Truxillo 196 Castillo del Peten 165 Distancias desde esta Capital a las Cabeceras de Partido 31 Zacapa 40 Chiquimula 81 Golfo 101 1/2 Omoa, pr tiera 40 Chalchuapa 45 Santa Ana 59 Sonsonate 69 Cojutepeque 72 Chalatenango 74 Zacatecoluca 77 San Vicente 109 Usulutan 105 Gotera 118 Tegusigalpa 136 Yuscaran 136 Aguantequerique 171 Viexo 182 Subtiaba 266 Masaya 230 Nicaragua 275 Nicoya 9 Guatemala Viejo 14 Escuinta 11 Totonicapam 38 Chimaltenango 43 Masatenango 61 Quesaltenango 75 Tuxtia 140 Sn. Anto Retaluleu Source: AGCA A1.25 Legajo 2603, Expediente 21389 * all unusual spellings, SIC
438
APPENDIX E: Population of the Kingdom of Guatemala, ca. 1775-1800 El: Distribution of Population, by Districts, 1778-1800 T errito ry Chiapas D istrict Ciudad Real Soconusco Tuxtia Chimaltenango Chiquimula Escuintla Quezaltenango Sacatepequez Solola Suchitepequez Totonicapan Verapaz Sonsonate San Salvador Comayagua Tegucigalpa Leon Matagalpa Nicoya Realejo Subtiava Costa Ria 1778 40277 9078 19898 40,082 52586 24978 28563 66095 27953 17535 51272 52138 29248 117,436 56677 31455 69399 19955 2983 6209 8850 24536 797, 203 % 5.1 1.1 2.5 5.0 6.6 3.1 3.6 8.3 3.5 2.1 6.5 6.5 3.7 14.8 7.1 3.9 8.7 2.5 .4 .8 1.1 3.1 1800 70,039 8901 20494 37.723 45743 25699 28757 78321 28765 16780 57045 45945 31020 145906 83627 44016 102,000 22000 8000 15,000 12000 30313 920,409 % 7.3 .9 2.2 4.0 4.8 2.7 3.0 8.2 3.0 1.7 6.0 4.8 3.2 15.2 8.7 4.6 10.7 2.3 .8 1.6 1.2 3.1
Guatemala
S. Salvador Honduras Nicaragua
Costa Rica Total
Bemabe Fernandez Hernandez, El Reino de Guatemala durante el Gobiemo de Antonio Gonzalez Sardvia, 1801-1811 (Guatemala, 1993), p. 69. Military district populations have been added into the provinces (principally Comayagua), and el Peten added to Verapaz. (Note: Sonsonate has been included under Guatemala, not El Salvador, which it joined in 1824. Totals are mine).
APPENDIX E (continued) E2: Population of Guatemala City (Asuncion de Guatemala) Ladinos Asuncion: Asuncion: Asuncion: Asuncion: Asuncion: Catedral* Remedios* Candelaria* S. Sebastian* S Juan del Obispo* 1603 2515 3004 Indios 1993 1831 Total 10,837 3596 4328 4646 3004
*Jesus Maria Garcia Afloveros, Poblacion y Estado Socioreligioso de la Diocesis de Guatemala en el ultimo tercio del siglo XVIII (Guatemala, 1989), p 193.
440
APPENDIX E (continued) E3: Population & Racial Composition of Select Cities & Towns, Central America, ca. 1800 City Santiago Guatemala * (1750s) Antigua Guatemala** S Juan Sacatepeques Chiquimula de la Sierra San Antonio Retahuleu** Sta Cruz Chiquimulilla Nra Sra Solola** Sta Ana Chimaltenango* * Quezaltenango S. Miguel Totonicapan Gueguetenango** Chiantla Guazacapan Sonsonate Aguachapa (Ahuachapan) San Salvador San Miguel Zacatecoluca San Vicente Santa Ana Grande **PI) Spanish 6616 (algunos) 75 296 32 (algunos) Mixed (MeO'*d,Miil, Par) 25,041 (los demas) (Mu) 336 589 (M) 826 1108 (algunos) 464 5536 (Mu) 454 (L) 500 a ) 400 (L & some Esp.) 346 2795 (L) 1383 (M) 10,860 (P) 5300 3087(M) 3869(P) 3417 (L) Indian 6700 5000 2000 1761 6144 -5000 -3000 5000 6395 800 280 1720 185 2500 585 1592 Total 38300 7-8000 5411 2885 2619 7252 5000 3000 11,000 6849 1300 680 2084 3421 4047 12,059 5539 4888 4087 6000
18 441 164 614 239 209 218 338
(los demas) Ciudad Real** 3583 500 76 fam. 144 aim. Comayagua*** 498 families & 218 solt. 86 507 families & 233 solt. 1407 Tegucigalpa*** families (S Miguel, ComayW Rio Abajo & Hondo: aguela Suyapa) 543 fam, 330 single 300 (N) 380 Truxillo** 80-100 Leon 144 7571 1061 6366 (626 Me, 5740 Mu) Granada 8233 863 5675 (910 Me, 4765 Mu) 1695 604 Nueva Segovia 453 (Mu) 151 Cartago 8337 632 7705 (6026 Me, 1679 Mu) San Jose 6350 8326 1976 Villa Vieja (CR) 1848 6655 4807 (3935 Me, 872 Pa) Villa Hermosa (CR) 610 3890 3280 (2396 Me, 884 Mu) :sp-Spanish, L - Ladino, Vlu-Mulatto, Me-Mestizo, Pa-Pardo, si - Negro (Black) Algunos - Some, los demas- the rest, Alm-Almas (Souls); Fam.- Families
441
APPENDIX E (continued) Sources: ^Santiago, fin C. Lutz, Santiago de Guatemala 1541-1773, Estimated Population o f Santiago de Guatemala, p. 110, Table 9. His categories are Spanish & clergies = my Spanish; gente Ordinaria = my Mixed; and Indian o f 1 inner barrio (1300) and 4 outer settlements (5400). **Juarros: Ciudad Real: vecindario corto..no mas q 333 habitantes y como 50 indios de los Barrios, p 15; S Antonio Retahuleu w/ Sta Catarina Sacat., p 17; Sta Cruz Chiquimullila,p. 19, Sta Ana Grande, p. 21, Truxillo, p 29 (and 200 o f destacamento), Huehuetenango, p. 40, Solola, p. 43, Chimaltenango, p. 45, and Antigua, p. 47. *** Honduras information, 1801 Matricula, AGI Guatemala 501.
442
APPENDIX F: Jurisdictions of the Villas of Santisima Trinidad de Sonsonate & Tegucigalpa F-S 1: Population By Parishes. 1770s Parishes Sonsonate Asuncion de Ysalco Dolores de Ysalco Nahuizalco Ahuachapan Ateos Guaymoco Caluco Apaneca Total Total 3864 2212 3455 4692 4913 2167 2024 1715 1928 26970 Pueblos 5 1 1 4 3 7 5 4 3 32 Indios 733 1817 3060 2790 1798 562 796 1242 562 13360 Ladinos 395 395 190 1035 43 710 456 43 3267
F-S2: Population Bv Villages. 1770s Village Caluco Naulingo Guaimango Juyuta Isalco Guaymoco Indios Ladinos Village 280 273 Ateos 243 121 Xicalapa 607 55 Ahuachapan 7Apaneca 112 4877 790 Nahuisalco 710 790 F-S3: By Villages. 1791 Asuncion Agualchapa (Ahuachapan) Santa Maria Magdalena Tacuba Concepcion Ataco San Pedro Caluco San Andres Guaymango San Miguel Jujutla Santiago Naulingo San Silbestre Guaymoca San Miguel Sonsacate San Ysabel Mexicanos Nuestra Senora Dolores Ysalco Sto Domingo Gunipam San Pedro de Pustla San Juan Naguisalco Sta Catarina Masagua Bo del Angel y San Francisco San Andres Apaneca San Miguel Quezalcoatitan Santa Lucia Juayuba San Antonio del Monte Nuestra Sefiora Asumpcion Ysalco Indios Ladinos 37 55 6 507 900 1798 338 668 190 2790
21 pueblos and 2 barrios; 9 Julio 1791, Alcaldia Mayor, Sonsonate
443
APPENDIX F (continued): Jurisdiction of the Alcaldia Mayor of Sonsonate

HTribs Change * Tribs 1791 1790 1790-1 1791 575 502 73 436 390 46 Sto Dgo. Gunipam 43 297 256 43 S Pedro de Pustla 27 80 54 -26S Juan Naguisalco 580 219 175 44 Sta Catarina 95 Masagua 40 30 10Barrio del Angel y 22 de S Francisco 74 70 -4 S Andres Apaneca 131 141 125 16S Miguel 90 Quezalcoatitan 83 135 52Sta Lucia Juayuba 276 34 25 9S Antonio dl Monte 50 587 632 -45 Nr Sra Asuncion Y. 604 21 pueblos, 2 bos. 4750
Change 1790 1790-1 43 268 604 105 14 120 104 136 36 647 4449 3 -24 -10 8 11 -14 140 14 43 301
Asuncion Agualchapa Sta Ma Magd. Tacuba Concepcion Ataco S Pedro Caluco S Andres Guaymango S Miguel Jujutla Santiago Naulingo S Silbestre Guaymoca S Miguel Sonsacate S Ysable Mexicanos N Sra Dolores Ysalco TOTAL
F-S5: Population. 1796 Indians: Spaniards & Ladinos 4698 Tributaries, 2 naborios, 21 pueblos Married: 7893 Married: 3236 1415 Widowed: Widowed: 649 2637 Single Single: 2052 Children: 4550 Children: 2252 Total: 16495 Total: 8189 TOTAL: 24, 684 F-S6: Population. By Villages. 1821 Parishes Population Towns & Pueblos No. of Houses Sonsonate 4112Sonsonate, Mexicanos, Sonsacate, San Antonio 536; 34; 187; 66 Asuncion Y. 2666Asuncion Ysalco 304 4179Dolores Ysalco Dolores Y. 686 Naguisalco 3629 Naguisalco 617 Apaneca 3188 Apaneca, Salquatitan, Juayua 202, 168, 236 Aguachapan 6444 Aguachapan 1251 Atiquisaya 2415 Atiquisaya 453 Ataco 3508 Ataco, Tacuba 278,523 Guaymoco 1115 Guaymoco, Caluco 238, 12 Caluco 2016Naulingo, Guaymango, Tujuta 55, 265, 82 San Pedro 2289San Pedro, Masagua, Santo Domingo 285, 111,68 Total 35,561 22 Pueblos 6787
444
APPENDIX F (continued): Jurisdiction of the Alcaldia Mayor of Tegucigalpa Parishes Tegucigalpa Cantarranas Danli Choluteca Ojojona Goascoran Orica Nacaome Texiguat Tatumbla Total F-Tl. Population By Parishes. 1801 Pueblos Valles Indios Espaiioles & Ladinos 5 10 1412 14,514 3 5 5600 3254 5 5 8 6 552 6600 3 7 713 4 1984 3 2 54 3 2 20 8172 1 46 331 3 6 95 35 5046 38,140 231 Total 15,975 5600 3254 7152 713 1984 54 8172 282 45,268
In 1791, Tatumbla was a parish in the district o f Comayagua, not Tegucigalpa, and Aguanqueterique was a separate parish with 2082 residents. Aguanqueterique in 1801 was an Indian village in Goascoran. F-T2. Population. Parish o f Tegucigalpa. AGE 0-20, 7-20, W (years) M Villa y sus arrabales en circuito, Espaiioles 104 88 max. 3 1/2 leguas Mulatos 937 941 Pblo San Miguel, contiguo a la Villa Indios 27 28 407 Pueblo Comayaguela, contiguo Indios 358 Valle de Rio Hondo y rio Abajo, 6 leguas Mulatos 213 186 Pueblo de Tamara y valle, con aldeas 1 Indios 2 Mulatos 108 105 Total 1798 1707 M - Men, W-Women 1783 >20, M 104 796 32 358 191 3 79 1563 >20, Y V 150 1178 37 407 215 0 93 2080
Total 446 3852 124 1530 805 6 385 7148
445
APPENDIX F (continued): Jurisdiction of the Alcaldia Mayor of Tegucigalpa F-T3. Pooulation. Parish o f l 'egucigalpa, 1815 Confesidn Lugares Fam ilias Ninos (Total) Tegucigalpa y sus barrios 525 595 2092 Espanoles en todo el curato 85 149 278 Yndios del Pueblo Abajo 14 21 52 Yndios del de Comayaguela 304 478 1021 Rio Abajo, mulatos 112 149 382 Ermita del Rio Hondo y su valle 114 143 353 Iglecia Tamara, Indios 5 8 10 74 Tamara, y su valle, mulatos 58 240 Soroguare, coa y sta cruz 80 124 266 Matheos a Upare 30 31 98 Potrero Ysaguire a Orcones 52 79 176 Sta Rosa Loarque, a tierras del Pe. 27 148 83 Jacaleapa minas de Villa Nva 83 135 335 Ermita de Suyapa y su valle 54 197 90 Sabana Grande a los Sitios etc 53 69 195 Total 1596 2228 5843 F-T4: Parishes of Tegucigalpa. 1791
1.
Resum en (Individuals) 2687 427 73 1499 531 496 18 314 390 129 255 231 470 287 264 8071
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Parish Pueblos Tegucigalpa: Tegucigalpa, Amarateca, Comayaguela, Pueblo Abajo, Tamara Aguanqueterique: Aguanqueterique, Alubaren, Curaren, Lauterique, Reitoca Cantarranas: Cantarrana, San Francisco V., Guaimaca V. Danli: Danli, Jamastran Valle, Potrerillos, Teupasenti Choluteca: Choluteca , Corpus Mineral, Linaca, San Martin M., Morolica V., Orocuina, Tircagua, Yusgare Ojojona: Ojojona , Santa Ana, Lepaterique Goascoran: Goascoran, Aramesina, Langue Orica: Orica, Agalteca, Nacaome: Nacaome, Pespire, Texiguat Texiguat
446
APPENDIX F (continued): Jurisdiction of the Alcaldia Mayor of Tegucigalpa F-T5: Parishes of Tegucigalpa. 1801 Subdelegacion de Tegucigalpa Parish: Tegucigalpa Pueblos (de Espafioles/Ladinos): Villa de Tegucigalpa, Rio Hondo, Rio Abajo, La Venta, Sabanagrande, El Rancho, El Cimarron, La Estancia de Oropoli, Xacaliapa/Suyapa, Pueblo Abajo, Reduccion de Mateo, San Antonio de Xalaca, S Diego Buena Vista, Caridad de Guinope, Santa Gerturids, Mineral de Sta Lucia, Mineral de S Antonio, Yuscaran; Pueblos de Indios: San Miguel de Tegucigalpa, Suyapa R, Comayaguela Pueblos de Indios Parish: Oioiona Pueblos: Ojojona, Lepaterique, Santa Ana Parish: Tatumbla Parish Texiguat Pueblos: Texiguat, Tamara Subdelegacion de Danli Parish: Danli Pueblos: Danli, Xaxetapa, Teupacenti, Alauca, Xacaliapa (Jacaleapa), Mineral de Potrerillos Subdelegacion de Cedros Parish: Cantarranas Pueblos: Cantarranas, Mineral de Cedros, Moroceli, Guaimaca, San Francisco, Yuculateca, Marale, Orica, Agalteca Pueblos de Indios: Parish: Orica Pueblos: Orica, Agalteca Subdelegacidn de Nacaome Parish: Nacaome Pueblos: Nacaome, Goascoran, Pespire, San Juan, La Caridad, Alubaren, Aramecina, S Antonio Dulce Nombre Pueblos de Indios Parish: Goascaran R Pueblos: Goascaran R., Langue, Aaramecina R., Pespire R, Aguanqueterique, Curaren, Alubaren R, Reytoca, Lauterique Subdelegacion de Choluteca Parish: Choluteca Pueblos: Villa de Choluteca, Namasigua, Yusguare, Orocuina, Mineral del Corpus, Reduccion de S MarcoSyPueblos de Indios: Ninaca, Tiscagua
447
APPENDIX F (continued): Jurisdiction of the Alcaldia Mayor of Tegucigalpa ___________ F-T6:AlcaldiaMayorde Tegucigalpa.1743_________
Partido District Teguci galpa Cant arranas Espafiol Spanish RM* Poblados Communities Indio Mineral Indian Mine Tamara S. Antonio Comayaguela S. Salvador Tegucigalpa None Cedros Suyatal Pelanariz S. Antonio Valle Valley Amarateca Rio Hondo Yeguare Talanga Xalaca Ciria, Tapale Yuculateca Guarabuqui Guaytnaca Moroceli Guayuaca** S. Juan** S. Fco** Oropoli S. Jose Colon Guasaule Sta. Ines Venta, S. Jose El Coyolar Quibiriplanta Apacunca None Habitantes Inhabitants Ind. Lad. 874 4128 Co. MU Esp 420 3
P*
1344
210
Choluteca
V*
Nacaome Ojojona
p* a None
Texiguat Lineza Orocuina Yusguare Pespire Ojojona Sta Ana Ula Lepaterique Aguanque terique; Reytoca Alubaren Curaren Lacterique Orica Agalteca Tatumbla Goascoran Langue Arameci Teupasenti
Corpus0 S. Martin S. Carlos None
2680
2421
393
50 2575
1592 2700
294
1 1
Aguanque -terique
None
None
2394
1071
Orica
None
Sta. Lucia None
None
235
223
Goascoran
None V* No cabildo
None
643
1260
Danli
Potrerillos0
Xamastlan Xacaleapa Cuscateca Vallecillo
294
5062
378
* Town has same name as partido. ** In the relacidn, appear as villas de negrosy mulatos." By 1765, Santa Lucia & Nacaomes populations were classed as mulato, Potrerillos as pardo, and Corpus as Spanish and mulato. TERMS: Co. Mil. = Militia Companies; Ind. = Indian; Lad. = Ladino, Esp. = Espafiol. V =Villa (Town), P = Pueblo (Village), RM = Real Minas (Mine)
448
Appendix F: Alcaldias Mayores de Sonsonate & Tegucigalpa Sources F-S l, S2: Jesus Maria Garcia Aiioveros, Poblacion y Estado Socioreligioso de la diocesis de Guatemala en el ultimo tercio del siglo XVIII (Guatemala, 1989), pp. 194, 205 F-S3,4 AGCA A3 Legajo 238, Expediente 4727 F-S5: AGCA A1.44 Leg. 588, Exp. 5331, Report of Alcalde Mayor Jose de Najera. F-S6: Gazeta de Guatemala, No 95, 7 January 1799. F -T l: Domingo Juarros, Compendio de la Historia del Reino de Guatemala (Guatemala, 1981), pp. 32,64-81 F-T2: Revista del Archixo y Biblioteca Nacionales (Honduras), T. 28, p. 388. F-T3: Padron, 1815, ANH (Tegucigalpa), Fondo Colonial, Box 105, Number 3716. NB: Sum o f Soroguare is o ffb y 100 in the original (490). F-T4: Domingo Juarros, Compendio de la Historia del Reino de Guatemala (Guatemala, 1981), pp. 32, 64-81. F-T5: Matricula de Honduras, Ramon de Anguiano, Intendant, 1801, AGI Guatemala 501; reprinted: H. M. Leyva, ed. Documentos Coloniales de Honduras (Choluteca, Ho.: CEHDES, 1981), pp. 276-289. F-T6 : 1765, Informe de Joseph Valle, Boletin del Archivo General de Guatemala 2:3, p. 466.
449
Appendix G: Commerce o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala, 1800 G 1: Noticia de las Provincias v partidos que tienen el Revno de Guatemala, con sus respectivas producciones. Obispado de Ciudad Real de Chiapas. Sus producciones, ningunas en sustancia, excepto el poco tabaco que coge, proque las que da se consumen en sus despoblada provincia. Soconusco. Produce cacao y algun afiil. Totonicapam. Da texidos de lana, y aun mas trigo. San Antonio. Cacao y algodon en rama. Solola. Tirgo y grabanzos. Chimaltenango. Trigo y minestras. Zacatepeques. Nada en sustancia. Escuintla. Sal y pescado. Guatemala, capital, y arzobispado. Muchos texidos de algodon. Verpaz, Ylados de algodon y zarzaparrilla. Chiquimula. Ylados de algodon y algunas minas de plata. Sonsonate. Muy pocos ylados de idem, algun balsamo, afiil, azucar, petates y sombreros. San Salbador. Mucho anil y algun azucar. Comaagua, Obispado. Ganado bacuno, alguno mular, y muy poco afiil y zarzaparilla. Gracias. Tabaco y muy poco anil. Tegucigalpa. Minas de plata. Nicaragua, Obispado. Cacao, ganado bacuno y mular; quesos, afiil, palos de tinte, maderas, mucho maiz, azucar, alquitranes, breas, tortugas y carey. Nicoya. Ganado de dichas dos clases, perlas, e ylo morado. Matagalpa. Trigo, azucar, y ganado de las propias dos clases. Segobia. Azucar y ganado. Costarrica. Tabaco, azucar, cacao e ylo morado. Nota: Q en quant a extraccion de maderas y palos de titne, no se verifican hoy otras que las que del puerto de Realejo se Uevan al Peru. Otra. La pesca del carey y tortuga se hace en mucha abundancia por los Moscos e ingleses que habitan por las costas del Norte de este reyno, sin que a nosotros nos resulte ventaja alguna. Otra. El corte de palos de tinte y de exquisitas maderas respectiva a dicha costa del Norte, tampoco nos rinde utilidad chica ni grande, sucediendo con esto lo mismo que con el carey y la tortuga, por cuya razon y sin que el puerto de San Juan se fomente, jamas podra el reyno gozar lo que su mismo terreno le brinda por aquella prte en tantisima abundancia.: Granada, y Enero 3 de 1800. Source: Attributed to Spanish merchant Juan de Zavala (1753-1800). In Carlos Melendez, ed., Textos Fundamentales de la Independencia Centroamericana (Costa Rica: Editorial Universitaria, 1971), pp. 66-67. 450
Appendix G: Commerce of the Kingdom o f Guatemala, 1800 (continued) G2: Sonsonate. Produce. 1765 Fruits arras indigo (anil) sugar petates de tul cotton thread cadao tobacco (little) ajonjoli (\iXX\e)chian (little) G3: Tegucigalpa. Produce. 1765 Cattle fruits cotton trapiches (mills) to grind sweet cane com beans some wheat rapaduras sugar cheeses silver and gold mines tobacco afiil salt salt straw hats
Sources: Sonsonate: Report, Don Joseph Melchor de Ugalde (Treasurer), 1765, Boletin del Archivo General del Gobiemo. Vol. 2, No 2, p. 288 Tegucigalpa: Maria de los Angeles Chaverri Mora, La Alcaldia Mayor de Tegucigalpa en la Relacion Geografica de Don Baltasar Ortiz de Letona, 1743, p. 33. Paper presented at the Tecer Congreso Centroamericano de Historia, San Jose, Costa Rica, July 1996. The relacion geografica was reprinted in BAGG, Vol. 1, No 1, October 1935. 1765: Informe, Joseph Valle, Boletin del Archivio General de Guatemala 2:3, p. 466.
451
APPENDIX H: Comparison of Prices Paid for Regimientos Sencillos, Kingdom of Guatemala, 1781-1807 and the 1600s Reeimientos Sencillos Afio Precio Ano Precio Nicaragua 1790 225 Nicaragua 330 1796 Nicaragua 1S01 360 Leon 1790 325 1631 612 Leon 1792 720 Leon 360 1796 Leon 320 1796 Tegucigalpa 1793 205 Tegucigalpa 200 1799 Tegucigalpa 1800 210 Tegucigalpa 200 1802 San Vicente 1796 200 1658 800 (2) San Vicente 300 1805 Granada 1793 300 1631 612(6) Granada 1800 305 Granada 1806 300 San Miguel 500 1627 1802 950 T (6) San Miguel 1802 500 1647 950 T (6) San Miguel 550 1805 Comayagua 1794 200 1627 650 (4) Comayagua 1806 100 1645 650 (4) Comayagua 1807 100 Sonsonate 1795 100 1635 600(6) Sonsonate 1798 100 Sonsonate 100 1803 Quesaltenango 1805 750 Santa Ana 1807 200 San Salvador 1796 331 (2) 1645 500T (8) San Salvador 1796 248 Guatemala 1794 300(6) 1642? 3999T(12) Guatemala 1794 1050 Guatemala 1800 300 Guatemala 300 1803 Guatemala 1806 300 Ciudad Real 1781* 300 (6) 1627 400 (8) Ciudad Real 1781-5* 300 (4) 1642 400 (8) Cartago* 1798* 100 All prices are in pesos unless there is a T (tostones) or Due (ducados), for some o f the 17lh c values. Regidor Sencillo
452
APPENDIX H: Comparison of Prices Paid for Reeimientos Sencillos, Kingdom of Guatemala, 1781-1807 and the 1600s SOURCES: 18th c.: AGI Guatemala 629, Listado de Valores de Regimientos, 1807, 1804: # 37, Captain General A. Gonzalez, 3 April 17th c.: Juarros, Compendio Historico, pp 234-5. * Ciudad Real, Cartago & Chiapas values for 1781-5 and late 19th c respectively are from the Memorial that went w/ Listado de Valores, Testimonio: cumpto RC 1797 re legitimo valor ...a los oficios de Regidores, March 17 1807.
453
APPENDIX I: Comparison, Prices of Regimientos Dobles, Kingdom of Guatemala Regimientos Dobles San Vicente - 4 RD Cartago - 3 RD * Ciudad Real - 4 RD* Guatemala, est. 1643 Nicaragua Leon Leon Tegucigalpa Tegucigalpa San Vicente Granada San Miguel Sonsonate Sonsonate Ciudad Real Santa Ana Guatemala Comayagua San Salvador Cartago Tegucigalpa San Vicente San Vicente Granada Ciudad Real Guatemala Guatemala Leon San Miguel Comayagua San Salvador San Salvador Cartago Year Price Year 1658 1798* 1781 150 500 1643 1803 1794 1798 1802 1806 1800 1794 1802 1798 1800 1807 1794 305 1240 1000 362 1320 400 1050 600 300 200 300 500 1637 1750 10,000 Price 2400(4)
Tes. Papel Sellado AJguacil Mayor
1637 1643 1613 1639 1627 1644 1634 1645 1643
2000 2000 3000 3000 4687 14,000 1600 14.000T 1000
Alferez Real
1803 1793 1801 1807 1800 1806 1794
500 3125 3125 751 330 500 500
1637 1636 1637 1635 1629 1620 1636 1640
2000 3998 due. 1275 1000T 1700T 2000 T 2000 T 300
Prices are in pesos unless there is a T (tostones) or Due (ducados). Sources: See Appendix H.
454
APPENDIX I: Comparison, Prices of Regimientos Dobles, Kingdom of Guatemala (cont.) Alcalde Provincial Regimientos Dobles Year 1796 Leon San Miguel San Miguel Sonsonate Cartago San Salvador Guatemala Comayagua Sonsonate Depositario General Ciudad real Sonsonate Sonsonate San Salvador Guatemala Guatemala Granada San Miguel Comayagua Ciudad Real Cartago 1781-5* 1795 1798 1796 1794 500 250 300 663 500 1645? 1616 1642 1640 1635 1627 1631 1633, 1643 1750 T 28,500 T 6000 1550 750 2600T 4200 T 320 1799 (ren.) 1806 1803 1799 1796 1794 Price 2000 600 600 300 150 1105 500 Year 1645 1645 Price 4000 5000 T (Provcl)
1644 1643 16643
8000 (Provl) 2500 T (Provcl) 1600 T (Provcl)
1781-5*
350
Prices are in pesos unless there is a T (tostones) or Due (ducados). Sources: See Appendix H.
455
Appendix J: Sale of Regimientos Kingdom o f Guatemala. 1750-1810 Sonsonate Compras de Regimientos Conf. Buy Type Date Name 1750: 1749 RD RC: 27 Nov, Christobal Mendez, Alguacil Mayor, guarda mayor 1767 RD Nicolas de Ancheita y Castillo, R/AM, guarda mayor 1780: 1775 RD RC: 9 Jun: Manuel Diez Clemente: R/Alcalde Prov.l Sta Hdd RD RC: 9 Jun Manuel Carrera: regidor y depositario general, 250 p 1780: 1775 RC: 9 Jun Francisco Guevara y Dongo: regidor y Alferez Real, 1780: 1775 RD 1780: 1775 RS RC: 9 Jun Jose Antonio Cicilia y Montoya: Regidor sencillo AGCA: Leg 4632, ff287, 279, 281 v; Leg 2177 Exp 15713, f 67. 1797 1795 RD RC: 28 Mar, Casimiro Jose Cuellar, R/Alf real RC: 9 Aug:Ramon de Borica, Regidor sencillo 1800 1795 RS RC: 9 Aug; Cristoval Saavedra, alcalde provincial, vac. (AGI 1806: 1796 RD 622) Remates de Oficios. Tegucigalpa Conf. Buy Type Date Name MIA RS RC 16 Sep: Guillermo Rivera, 200 p 1774 1772 RD RC 16 Nov: Jose de Zelaya y Midense, AP de Sta Hdd 1774 RS RC 19 Sep: Luis Rivera, 200 p RC 15 Mar: Francisco Boijas, 100 p 1775 RS 1777 RS Don Juan Igno Garzon (Oyuela, 167) 1779 1770 RD RC 17 Jan : Reg/Depo Gral: Pedro Martir de Zelaya (AGI 446) 1789 1788 RD RC: 19 May: Ale R1 Sta Hdd, Juan Jacinto de Herrera, 300 p RD 1791 RC 23 May: Francisco Gonzalez Travieso, Reg & A lf Real 1793 1792 RS RC 27 Feb: Manuel Antonio Vazquez y Rivera 1799 1793 RS Bacilio Midense 205p 1795 1793 RS RC 21 Jun: Manuel Jose Midense, 205 pp 1802 RS Miguel Maria Guerrero, 1803 1802 RS RC 20 May: Jose Vigil, 200 p, 1805 1802 RS Juan Miguel Midense, 200 p 1806 RS Miguel Bustamante (not accepted) 1807 RS Joaquin Espinoza, 21 Op 1807 RD Francisco S Martin, Alg May, 300 p, 1807 RS Jose Manuel Marquez, 210 p, 1808 1807 RS RC 14 Feb: Benito Lorenzo LAVAQUI, 21 Op 1810 1806 RD RC 27 Oct: Alferez Real Jose Vigil
456
Appendix J: Sale o f Regimientos (continued) Guatemala Compra de Regimientos (Remates de Oficio) Santiago de Guatemala 1674 RD RC 16 Jul: Thomas Delgado de Najera, R/AM, 1707 RD RC 6 Dec: Jose de Cabrera, 4600 pp 1739 RD RC 28 Jul: Alg Mayor de Aud, Manuel de Barroeta, for self & 1 son, 16,000 p RC 16 Sep: Simon Larrazabal; replaces BasilioV. Roma 1753 RS 1764 1761 RD RC 8 Jul: Manuel Gonzalez Batres, Alferez Real 1764 1761 RD RC 8 Jul: Basilio Vicente Roma, AM 1764 1761 RD RC 8 Jul: Juan Fermin de Aycinena, DG Retires: 1780: RC 29 May AGCA, 4632, 283v. 1764 1761 RD RC 8 Jul: Francisco Ignacio Barrutia, AP 1764 1761 RS RC 8 Jul: Fernando Palomo 1764 1761 RS RC 8 Jul: Cayetano Jose Pavon 1764 1761 RS RC 8 Jul: Ventura de Nagera (Najera) 1764 1761 RS RC 8 Jul: Pedro Ignacio de Loaysa (Loaiza) 1767 RS RC 12 Dec: Juan Thomas de Micheo 1768 RS RC 21 Dec: Francisco Ignacio Chamorro 1772 RC 4 Jun: Nicolas Obregon RS 1774 Ventura Naxera y Mencos (1780 (RC)): Index AGCA, AO/Ayunt RS Guatemala de la Asunci6n fTVueva Guatemala) 1794 1793 RD Vicente Aycinena y Crarillo, Depositario General, 500 p & donat. 1794 1793- RD Pedro Aycinena y Larayn, Depositario General, 500 p & donation 1806 (1800: Becomes RS, b/c abolish all DGs) 1794 1793- RD Pedro Juan de Lara, AP (1807: gives to son, M anuel, AGCA A.l 1807 44-1118), 500 p and donation 1794 1793- RD Jose Maria Peynado y Pezonarte, Depo. Gral/Receptor de Penas, 1819 500 p and donation 1794 1793- RD Luis Francisco Barrutia y Roma, Alguacil Mayor, 500 p 1794- 1793 RS Manuel Jose Pavon y Mufloz, 300 p plus 25 pp donation 1806 resigns 1794 1793 RS Miguel Ignacio Alvarez de Asturias y Naba, 300 p & 25 p donation 1794 1793 RS Jose Antonio Batres y Mufioz, 300 p & 25 p donation 1794 1793 RS Martin (Antonio) Barrundia Segura, 300 p & 25 p donation 1794 1793- RS Jose Antonio Castafiedo, 300 p & 25 p donation 1803 1794 1793- RS Rafael Jose Ferrer, 300 p & 25 p donation 1805
457
Appendix J: Sale of Regimientos (continued) Guatemala de la Asuncion fNueva Guatemala) Conf. Buy 1799?- R 1804 1803 1807 1806 1806/7 18091816
O uesaltenango
Type RS RD RS R?
Date Name Antonio (Saenz de) Tejada (AGCA A 205-3697) RC 1 June: Antonio Juarros: (Later RD) Manuel Jose de Lara, (left by father, Pedro Juan), AP Antonio Isidro Palomo Manrrique Miguel Jacinto Marticorena (AGCA A1.2 L 44, E 1129) Francisco (Antonio) Batres y (Najera) (AGCA 2188-15735,45v)
1806: establish ayuntamiento de Espanoles for this villa; sell all 6 regimientos to Bartolome Josef Tellez to resell, as procurador o f the town. He resells 5 to: 1807 RD Jose Mariano Castro, R/AP, 300 pp/5 yrs 1807 RD Fernando Mendez, R/AR, 300 pp/5 years 1807 RD Santiago Garcia, R/AM, 300 pp/5 years 1807 RS Domingo Figueroa, RS, 200 pp 1807 RS Mariano Menendez, RS, 200 pp (between original purchase & interim title (1810), some changed: vis) Mariano Galvez, R/AP: val 150 p, sale 1815 1810 RD RC: 11 Jul 1815 1810 RD RC: 11 Jul Miguel Molina, R/Alg mayor, 150 pp Juan Antonio Lopez, R/AR, 150 pp 1815 1810 RD RC: 11 Jul Calixto Aguilar, 100 p RS 1815 1810 RS RC: 11 Jul
Santa Ana
1806: Establish ayuntamiento de Espanoles for this pueblo ; sell all 6 regimientos in 1806. Bartolome Jose Tellez purchased them all and resold them to other vecinos. Letter, 27 September 1809, Corregidor y Intendente de la Ciudad y Provincia de San Salvador 1811 1807 RD RC: 31 Jul Josef Mariano castro, R/AP, Pblo de Sta Ana, 300 P Fernando Mendez, R/alf Real, 300 pesos 1811 1807 RD RC: 31 Jul 1811 1807 RD RC: 31 Jul Stiago Garcia, R/Alg Mayor, 300 pesos 1811 1807 RS RC: 31 Jul Domingo Figueroa, RS, 200 pesos 1811 1807 RS RC: 31 Jul Mariano Menendez, RS, 200 pesos
458
Appendix J: Sale of Regimientos (continued)

San Vicente de Austria
Conf. 1650 1754 1751 1752 1771 1772 1775 1781 1780 1782 1787 1793 1793 1795 1800 1802 1803 1816
Type RD RS? RD RS RD RD RD RD RD RS RD RS RS RD RS RD RD 1809
Date Name RC: 30 May Antonio Rodriguez RC: 17 Jan Joseph de Villata, 128 pp RC 21 Nov Phelipe de Pereira, R/DG, 250 pp RC: 5 Mar Nicolas de Cafias, RS, 128 p RC: 15 Nov Fco Comejo, AP, 300 p; RC: 12 Oct Antonio Merino, R/DG; RC: 15 Mar Jose Rodriguez, Alferez Real RC: 28 Dec Juan Francisco Quintanilla, AP, 2000 pesos RC: 9 Jun Francisco Molina, Alguacil Mayor, 380 pesos RC: 22 Dec Antonio de Amaya, RS, 200 pesos RC: 2 Feb Jose Antonio Rodriguez del Camino, R Alg May, 380 pp. RC: 19 Feb Jose Antonio Vasconcelos, RS RC: 19 Feb Mnl Anto Yraeta, RS RC 28 Dec Felipe Mariano Vidaurre, A lf Rl, 3125 pesos RC: 9 Aug Manuel Ximenez Basurto, RS RC: 19dec: Jose Anto Rodeiguez del Camino, R/AM, 400 pesos RC 21 Apr Josef Rafael de M olina, R/Alf Rl RC:? Mariano Prado, R/Alg May (AGI 629) Name Antonio Fernandez, Alg Mayor, 500 pesos Antonio de Arriaga; 300p, Luis Fernandez: Ale Prov. de la Sta Hermandad, 900 p, Juan de Aranzamendi, A lf May, 420 p Juan Antonio Rosales, RS, 300 p Pedro Gonzalez del Castillo, R/AP, 1000 pesos Benito Gonzalez Patifio, RS, 300 peoss; Bartolome Alvarez y Soto, R/Alg Mayor, 535 pesos Alexandra Ungo, RS, 300 pesos Venetura de la Calera, 225 pesos Domingo Luciano Duran, RS, 400 pesos Alexandra Saenz de Ungo, R/Alc Prv., 1105 p 1/2 r Pablo Gonzales, RS, 200 pp
SAN SALVADOR Conf. Type Date RC: 9 Nov 1756: RD 1756 RS RC: 13 Nov 1756 RD RC: 30 Nov 1767 RD RC: 1 Mar 1775 RS RC: 17 Jul 1779 RD RC: 2 Jul 1781 RS RC: 26 Sep 1785 RD RC: 6 Sep 1785 RS RC: 24 Jan RC: 26 Nov 1786 RS 1795 RS RC: 4 May 1799 RD RC: 1 Jun 1802 RS RC: 25 Jun
459
Appendix J; Sale of Reeimentos (continued) SAN MIGUEL Conf. Type Date Name 1756 RS RC: 23 Mar Juan Joseph Escolan, 300 p 1756 RS RC: 23 Mar Juan Gonzalez de Castillo, 300 pp; 1757 RS RC: 12 Nov Manuel de Molina RS, 400 pesos 1766 RD Jose Antonio Martinez Molina, Ale Prov, 600 p RC 13 Feb 1770 RD RC: 16 Dec Phelipe Cisneros Torquemada, Alg Mayor, 400 p 1771 RS Joseph Sebastiann Zelayandia, 300 p RC: 27 Feb 1773 RD Josef de Salazar, R/Alf Rl: 300 p RC: 13 Sep 1775 RS Benito Dominguez de Castilla, 300 p RC: 29 Sep 1782 RD RC: 22 Dec Josef Antonio de Andrade, R/DG, 400 p 1785 RD RC: 13 Apr Josef de la Luz Escolan, R/AP; 650 p 1788 RS RC: 14apr Martin Josef Escolan, RS, 300 p 1797 RS RC: 24 Dec Victor Santiago Rodriguez, 300 p (purchase in 1794) 1797 RS RC: 21 Dec Josef Rumualdo Becerril, 300 p (purchase in 1794) 1802 RD Josef George Louzel, R/AP, 300 p (purchase in 1794) RC: 2 Feb COMAYAGUA 1759 RD RC: 26 Jun 1797 RD RC: 30 May Antonio Balibrera, AP/R (new title in 1763) Pablo Nieto, R/Alg Mayor: 800 pp (purchase in 1792)
X EREZ DE CHOLUTECA 1761 RD Juan Feliz Bricefio, R/DG, 100 p RC: 7 Aug 1762 RD Joseph Martin de Zelaya, R/ALg May, 120 p RC : 7 Apr GRACIAS A DIOS 1756 RS RC: 23 Mar 1655 RS RC: 11 Mar 1655 RS RC: 11 Mar Juan Tiburcio Lopez, RS, 100 p Joseph Rivera, RS, 100 p Gabriel de Saavedra, RS, 100 p
PROVINCIA DE NICARAGUA Alcaldes de la Santa Hermandad 1761 RD RC: 2 Dec Juan Baptista de Armendiz, vo Granada, I670pp, 1769 RD RC: 5May Refers to RC o f 1761, in which Armendi is Alcalde Provincial de la Santa Hermandad for 4 cabildos y ciudades : Leon, Granada, Segovia y Villa de Nicaragua 1670 pp, Captain Geenrals temporary title, 26 May 1758 1782 RD RC: 23 Feb Josef Antonio Arauz y Altamirano, AP/R, 4 cavildos q comprende la Provincia de Nicaragua, 3350pp 1789 RD RC: 10 Mar Manuel de Taboada, 2000 pesos; unico postor 1798 1796 RS R C :30Jul Bias Joaquin de Sarria, 2000 p,
460
Appendix J: Sale of Regimientos (continued) NUEVA SEGOVIA Conf. Buy Type Date 1674 1751 1749 RD RC: 30 Aug 1757 RS RC: 25 Oct 1760 RS RC: 5 Sep 1760 RS RC: 5 Sep 1770 RD RC 16 Oct RIVAS (Concencion de Rivas) 1752 1747 RD RC: 4 Jul 1752 1747 RD RC: 4 Jul 1752 1747 RD RC: 4 Jul 1752 1747 RS RC: 24 Jul 1760 RD RC: 20 May 1769 RS RC: 17 Sep 1770 RD RC: 19 Nov 1772 RS RC: 12 Oct 1775 RS RC: 25 Feb 1775 RD RC: 20 Mar 1782 RS RC: 16 Dec 1782 RD RC: 16 Dec 1789 RS RC: 15 Sep 1790 RS RC: 17 Jul 1791 RS RC: 24 Feb 1805 RD RC: 8jun LEON DE NICARAGUA 1750 1749 RD RC: 7 Nov 1751 1749 RS RC: 21 Nov 1753 RS? RC: 18 Feb 1753 RS RC: 3 Jun 1754 RD RC: 17 Jan 1755 RS RC: 1 Mar 1759 RS RC: 5 Aug 1763 RS RC: 25 Sep 1763 RD RC: 25 Sep 1765 RS RC: 5 Dec 1766 RD RC: 1767 RD RC: 25 Apr Name Juan de Aparicio, Regidor, 166 p ? Miguel de Vilches y Cabrera, A lf May/Reg, 325 p Anto Bruno Fernandez de Bobadilla, 125 p Juan Philiberto Grozo, 125 p Francisco Joseph Casco y Aviles, 125 p Miguel de Armas, A lf Mayor, 325 p Manuel de la Cerda, Alg Mayor, 300 p Silbestre Villalta y Guzman, R/DG, 300 p Juan Santos de San Pedro, R /A lf mayor, 300 p Fco Mauricio de Orozco, 300 p Joseph de Villar, DG/R, 300 p Andres Gonzalez Araujo, 225 p Jose Manl Bonilla, Alg May; 305 p Luis de Bargas Bonilla, 200 pp , vacante Jose Jacobo Cordoba, 75 p Nicolas Velazquez y Baras, R /A lf Rl, 620 p Francisco Antonio Orozco, 75 p Andres de Villar, R/DG Manuel Antonio de Bustos, 235 p Ylario Parodi Jose Antonio de Bustos y Santiago, 2225 p Jose Antonio Bonilla, R/Alg Mayor: 305 p Joseph Antonio de Arechavala, R/DG, 915 p Juan Phelipe de Oconor, 210 p Diego de Carranza, R, 210 p Phelipe Constantino Oconor, repeat earlier Joseph Diaz de la Paz, R/Fiel executor, 260 p Francisco de Altamirano y Velasco, 300 p Santiago Vilches y Andravide, 150 p Francisco Estevan Sanchez de Herrera, 210 p Francisco Antonio de Somarriba, Fiel Ejec, 260p Estevan Jose Bricefio Coco, 210 p Nicolas Bricefio de Coca, A lf Mayor 1205p Manuel Antonio de Telleria, R /A lf Rl, 200 p
461
Appendix J: Sale of Regimientos (continued) LEON PE NICARAGUA (continued) Conf. Buy Type Date Name 1769 RD D Pedro Baca ( Cabeza de Vaca), 1800 p, R/AR 1775 RD RC: 8 Feb Pedro Manuel de Ayerdi, R/Fiel Exec, 3555 p 1776 Bernardo Jose Mendez de Figueroa, 300 p RS RC: 28 Jan 1778 RS RC: 23 Mar Thomas Fernandez Moure de Silva, 250 p 1783 RD RC: 13 Sep Pedro Ygn. Diaz Caveza de Vaca, A lf Rl, 1800 p 1783 RS RC: 26 Dec Jose Antonio de los Reyes, 320 p 1783 RS RC: 26 Dec Francisco Diaz de Mayorga 1784 RS RC: 16 Nov Domingo Nicolas Galarza, 550 p 1785 RD RC: 14 Jun RS Luis Coeto de Landa, toAlg M ayor, 1300 p 1786 Juan Guidin, 285p RS RC: 26 Nov 1786 RS RC: 26 Nov Francisco Josef de Castellon, 325 pp 1790 Joseph Manuel Diaz Caveza de Vaca, 325p RS RC: 4 Oct 1791 RS RC: 23 May Bias Joaquin Sarria, 320 pp 1791 RS Joaquin de Arechavala bought and then ceded to D Jose Antonio Diaz, 760 p 1794 RD Jose Antonio Bustos, R/A lf Rl, 3200 p; (?Granada) 1795 RS Melchor dela Zerda, 330 p (Granada?) 1793 RS Chaverria, 305 p 1796 RS Lorenzo Cardenas, remate, 300 p 1796 RS Jose Guerrero, 320 p 1797 RD Juan Sanches, 1000 p 1799 RS RC: 22 Feb Juan Lorenzo Cardenal, 300 p 1798 RD D Manuel Marchena, R/AP: 150 p (Granada?) 1800 RS D Jose Parajon, 300 p 1801 RS Agustin Anzoategui, 325 p 1801 RS Rumallo Guerrero, 300 p 1801 RS Jose Francisco Marino?, 300 p 1801 RS Eduardo Arana, 300 p 1801 RD Joaquin Solorzano, R/Alf Rl 1802 1799 RS RC: 7 Dec Benito Lardizaba, 360 p 1810 1811 RD Reg: 4 Jul Josef Parajon, R/Alg May, 150 pesos (AGI 624) 1818 RD RC: 6 Apr Leopoldo Aviles, Ale Prov, 2000 p
462
Appendix J: Sale of Regimientos (continued) GRANADA Conf. Buy Type Date 1668 RD RC: 22 Jun 1682 RD RC: 14mar 1754 RS RC: 23 Jul 1759 RD RC: 5 Aug 1760 RS RC: 20 May 1776 RD RC: 18 Dec 1779 RD RC: 17 Mar 1780 1773 RS RC: 21 Jun 1795 1793 RS RC: 27 Jan 1794 RD 1803 RS RC: 5 Apr Name Diego Ruiz de Ocafia, A Provl Hdd, 1750pp M Diego Vazquez de Montiel, A lf Mayor 333 pp Alonso Cabezas y Urizar, 300p Alonso Cavezas de Urizar, A lf Mayor: 800 p Joseph Antonio de Arguelles, 150 p Manuel Antonio Arana, Alg May, 700p Jose Joaquin Solorzano, A lf Rl, 800 pp Ubaldo Antonio de Pasos, 250 pp Joaquin Vigil, 300 pp (1793 sale: AGI 629) D Anto Perez Mena, Alg May, 1050 p Josef Antonio de Echavarria, 305 p
CARTAGO 1656*sic RD RC: 10 Feb Julio de Chavarria Nabarro, 175 p Josef Antonio Oreamuno, Alg May, 150p 1795 1791 RD RC: 18 May 1792 RD RC: 27 Apr Juan Francisco Bonilla, DG, 500 p 1787 1786 RD RC: 23 Jun Francisco Carazo, Ale Provl, 150 p Antonio de la Fuente, A lf Real 1782 1778 RD RC: 16 Dec (group request, to resestablish an extinct ayuntamiento', offers to pay in cacao) 1754 Juan Manuel de Soborio, Ale Prov, 500p RD: RC: 9 Jun CHIAPA (AGI 446) Conf. Buy Type Date 1784 1782 RS RC: 19 Jun 1784 1782 RD RC: 19 Jun 1784 1782 RD RC: 19 Jun 1784 1782 RS RC: 19 Jun 1784 1782 RS RC: 19 Jun 1784 1782 RS RC: 19 Jun 1784 1782 RS RC: 19 Jun 1787 1785 RD RC: 12 Aug 1802 1800 RD RC: 27dec 1802 1800 RD RC: 27dec Name Agustin de Tejada, vacant since 1744,300 pp Juan de Oliver, Alf Real, same arg, 500 p Nicolas Coello, Alg Mayor Jose Antonio Dominguez, 300 p Bartolome Gutierrez, 300 p Bias Gorris, 300 p Antonio Gutierrez de Arce, 550 p Santiago Gonzalez, R/Alf Rl, 500 p Jose Manuel de Velasco y Campo,Alg May, 25C Josef Maria Robles, A lf Rl, 300 p
463
Appendix J: Sale of Regimientos (continued) ALGUACIL MAYOR DE AUDIENC1A 28 Jul 1739: Manuel de Barroeta, Alg Mayor de corte; ..seen above 13 Nov 1795: Juan Mariano Barroeta: since 1787 (son o f Jose Manuel); splits with brother Hipolito 21 Aug 1799: Antonio Batres, Alg Mayor: TERMS: A lf Rl -Alferez Real (Standard Bearer); A lf MayAlferez Mayor (Standard Bearer); Alg MayAlguacil Mayor; Ale Hdd/Ale ProvAlcalde de la Hermandad/Provincial de la Hermandad (Rural Constable); DG-Depositario General p - pesos SOURCES Principal Sources AGI Guatemala 629, AGI Guatemala 446, unless otherwise specified.
464
Appendix K: Town Councilors, Guatemala, 1784-1850 NAME Abarca, Manuel Acuna, Manuel Jose Agreda, Andres, Maestro Aguilar, Ricardo Aguirre y Larios, Fco Xavier Aguirre, Antonio Aguirre, Francisco Xavier de Aguirre, Juan Francisco Ajuria, Juan Alfaro, Salvador Albert, Tohmas Almorza, Jose Alvarado, Jose Maria Alvarado, Juan Antonio Alvarado, Pablo Alvarez de Asturias y Beteta, Miguel Ignacio Alvarez de Asturias, Antonio Alvarez Asturias, Juan Bautista, Lie. Alvarez Asturias, Leocadio Alvarez de Asturias, Mmo Alvarez, Desiderio Andreu, Andres, Lie. Andreu, Antonio Anguiano, Juaquin Angulo, Damaso Angulo, Francisco Aqueche, Juan Antonio Aragon, Jose Antonio Arana, Felipe Araujo, Juan Antonio Araus, Cesario, Lie. (Arauz) Arbeu, Manuel First 1823 1826 1814 1829 1815 1842 1795 1845 1834 1826 1832 1843 1833 1823 1830 1788 1819 1811 1824 1817 1838 1839 1842 1843 1835 1833 1809 1830 1831 1816 1824 1826 Last 1834 1835 1814 1829 1838 1851 1795 1850 1838 1847 1832 1843 1833 1823 1830 1808 1833 1838 1924 1818 1839 1848 1850 1843 1850 1833 1820 1847 1831 1818 1825 1828 Positions 1823b-4,1829a:R; 1829, 1831, 1834: A3; 1831: A2 1826, 1832: R; 1835: A2 1814a: R 1829b:R 1815: R; 1838: A2 1842, 1851:R 1795: A2 1845: R; 1850: A3 1834, 1838b: A3 1826-7; 1846-7: R S2 R R 1823b: R (Sig. Jose Antonio) S2 1788-9; 1792-3; 1794-1812; 1815-20: R; 1799: A2 1819-1820a:R; 1824, 1833; A2 1813,18378b:R; 1811 :S; 1823: A1; 1830-1: A2 A2 1817-8: R 1838b-1839b: R 1839a: R; 1848: A3; 1844: A2 1842, 1849-50: R R 1843, 1850: R; 1835:A2;1839b:Al R 1809b-10:R; 1814a:Al; 1820a:A2 1832, 1847: R; 1830: A2 A1 1818: A 2(l) 1824-5: S2 1826-8: SEC
465
Appendix K: Town Councilors, Guatemala, 1784-1850 (cont.) NAME Arevalo, Fermin Arevalo, Nicolas Arevalo, Rafael Ariza, Pedro (Arriza) Ariza, Satumino del Campo Arraiz, Jose Francisco Arrechea, Juaquin Arrechea, Pedro Jose Arrido, Domingo Antonio Arrivillaga y Coronado, Antonio Jose Arrivillaga y Coronado, Cayetano Arrivillaga y Coronado, Fco Arrivillaga Coronado,Pedro J Arrivillaga, Antonio Arrivillaga, Luis, Lie. Arrivillaga, Manuel Arrivillaga, Mariano Arrivillaga, Mariano Arrivillaga, Victoriano Arroyave, Pedro, Lie. Arroyo, Raymundo, Lie. Arzu, Juaquin Astorga, Jose Pablo Asturias, Jose Ignacio Asturias, Juan Nepomuceno Asturias, Manuel, L. Avila, Carlos (Abila) Ayau, Jose Rafael Ayau, Manuel First 1824 1829 1834 1790 1821 1816 1848 1816 1784 1805 1826 1810 1798 1833 1835 1825 1785 1838 1837 1821 1841 1850 1823 1849 1804 1849 1821 1839 1851 Last Positions 1824 SI: not serve 1829 1829b: R 1849 1838a, 1845-6, 1848-9:R; 1834:S2 1802 1790-1: R; 1802: A2 1821 A2 1816 S(2) 1848 R 1828 1819-20; 1828: R; 1816: A2(3) 1789 1784-5; 1788-9: R 1812 1811-2: R; 1805:S 1842 1826-7: R; 1828, 1842: A2
1829 1810:S; 1820b:A2; 1829a, 1849?:R 1809 1798: S; 1809a/b: A2 1834 1833-4: R 1835 S2 1841 1825: SI; 1841: A1 1788 1785: A l; 1788: R 1838 1838: A2, Al 1837 R 1826 1821-2; 1826: S 1850 1841, 1847: S 2 ;1842: S I ; 1849: R; 1850: A2 1851 1850-1: R 1823 R 1849 A3 1818 1808; 1815-6:R; 1804:S; 1818:A1 1849 R 1832 1821-2; 1832: R 1850 1843-4, 1850 (ren.)R; 1839b:A2 1851 R
466
Appendix K: Town Councilors, Guatemala, 1784-1850 (cont.) NAME Aycinena y Carrillo, Dr. Josef Alexandra Aycinena y Carrillo, Vicente, Mqs. (Ayzinena) Aycinena y Larayn, Pedro Josef (Ayzinena) Aycinena y Pifiol, Mariano Aycinena, Ignacio Aycinena, Javier (Xavier) Aycinena, Juan Fermin de Aycinena, Mariano Aycinena, Pedro Ayerdi, Juaquin Azeituno, Jose Juaquin Azmitia, Jose Perfecto Balcacer, Juan Balcarcel, Juan Jose Barberena, Jose Antonio Barco, Diego del Barreda Castillo, Mnl Ignes Barrientos, (Juan) Carlos Barrillas, Eugenio Barrio (y Valle), Jose del Barrundia Segura, Martin Bammdia y Zepeda, Juan Barrundia y Zepeda, Miguel Barrundia, Jose Francisco Barrutia y Roma, Basilio Barrutia y Roma, Luis Francisco Barrutia, Francisco Xavier Barrutia, Jose Maria, Lie. Barrutia, Juan Josef de Barrutia, Luis Batres y Arrivillaga, Jose Batres de Asturias, Antonio Batres de Asturias, Rafael First 1792 1788 1785 1820 1845 1840 1816 1850 1829 1827 1814 1820 1842 1848 1825 1790 1823 1828 1834 1812 1787 1820 1826 1813 1796 1786 1816 1820 1791 1812 1784 1815 1817 Last 1811 1810 1807 1826 1850 1851 1817 1850 1843 1840 1814 1825 1842 1851 1825 1795 1824 1830 1835 1826 1799 1820 1831 1836 1810 1810 1817 1832 1792 1812 1789 1831 1826 Positions 1792, 1811: R; 1793: S; 1803:A2 1788-9; 1796-1807; 1809b; 1810: R/Alf Rl; 1794: A2 1788-9; 1792-1800: R/Dep Gral; 1785: A2; 1807: A l 1820a/b, 1821, 1826: A l 1845: A3; 1849: A2; 1850: A l 1840, 1850-1: R 1816-7: R Al 1843: R; 1829a: S2; 1839b: A2 1827-8; 1840: R 1814a: A2 1820b, 1823b, 1824-5: R R 1848: A3; 1851: A2 S2 1790-1: R; 1795; A2 1823b-4: R 1828-30: R 1834-5: R 1818-9:R; 1812:A2/A1; 1826:A3 1789:RB; 1792-1799:RP; 1787: S 1820b:R 1826, 1831: R; 1831: S2 1813-14a; 1836: R 1796-7; 1807:S; 1805:A2; 1810:A1 1786-7, 1795-1806, 1809b-1810: RD/Alg Mayor; 1792: A2 1816-7: R; 1816: S 1820, 1832: R; 1823; S 1791: S; 1792; R R (Same as Luis Fco?) 1784-5; 1788-9:RB; 1776:A1 1815:S;1819;27:A1; 1822,1831:A2 1817-8: R; 1826: A2
467
Appendix K: Town Councilors, Guatemala, 1784-1850 (cont.) NAME Batres y Mufios, Ventura Jose Batres y Mufioz, Jose Antonio Batres y Mufioz, Julian Batres y Mufioz, Luis, Lie Batres y Mufioz, Miguel Batres y Naxera, Antonio Batres y Naxera, Francisco Batres y Naxera, Pedro Batres, Cayetano, Lie. Batres, Pedro Vicente, Lie. Beltranena y Aycinena, Manl Beltranena y Llano, Jose Ma. Beltranena y Llano, J Manuel Beltranena y Llano, Mmo, Lie Beltranena y Llano,Pedro Jo Beltranena, Gregorio Beltranena, Juaquin Beltranena, Manuel Beltranena, Pedro Josef de Beltranena, Vicente Benavente, Francisco Bengoechea, Ramon Bermejo, Gregorio, Lie. Beteta, Manuel Lie Bolafios, (Jose) Vicente Bolafios, Manuel Bonilla, Policarpo Bregante, Juan Jose Bustamante, Juan Miguel Caceres, Antolin Caceres, Jose Maria Caceres, Valero Calderon, Jose Ynocente Calvos, Juaquin First 1790 1792 1808 1832 1815 1831 1815 1813 1842 1848 1813 1814 1820 1813 1811 1820 1825 1846 1786 1851 1825 1833 1846 1839 1826 1847 1827 1822 1827 1834 1829 1837 1818 1838 Last 1791 1806 1814 1845 1819 1831 1831 1813 1842 1851 1815 1827 1820 1813 1817 1820 1829 1850 1787 1851 1825 1839 1846 1849 1850 1847 1827 1829 1827 1848 1832 1837 1818 1850 Positions 1790-1: R 1792-1806: RP (RS) 1811-2: R; 1808: S; 1814b: S 1832: S2; 1833: SI; 1845: A l 1815; 1818-9: R A2 1815-6; 1820; 1827-8 :R; 1831: A3 1813;R S2, SI: 1842 1848: S2; 1849: S I; 1851: S2 1815: R; 1813; S2 1814a, 1818-9; 1827:R; 1827:A3 1820b: R 1813: S2 1811-2: R; 1817: S 1820a: R 1825, 1828-29a: R 1846, 1850 (renun): R 1786-7: R R A2 1839a/b: R; 1833:A3 R 1839a: S2; 1849: A3 1826:S1; 1846,1850:A3; 1827:Sec A3 R: not serve 1822-3, 1829a: R Al 1837,1839a/b ,1845, 1847-8: R; 1834: A3 1829b, 1832: R R Sec into Sec
468
Appendix K: Town Councilors, Guatemala, 1784-1850 (cont.) NAME Cambronero, Jose Maria Cambronero, Luis Cambronero, Miguel Maria Carbajal, Jose Maria Cardenas, Jose Maria Camino, Andres de Carranza, (Jose) Carmen Carrillo, Francisco Casanova, Bernardo Castanedo, (Josef) Antonio Castilla, Jose Pablo Castillo La Riva, Francisco Castillo, Doroteo Castillo, Eusebio, Lie. Castillo, Jose Domingo Castillo, Juan Jose Castillo, Manuel del Castillo, Sabino Castro, Estevan Castro, Juan de Dios Castro, Manuel (Maria) Cerda, Cayetano de la Cerezo, Fernando Chaves, Manuel Cividanes Espanol, Benito Cividanes, Braulio Cladera, Jose Geronimo Cladera, Mariano Coloma, Jose Contreras, Simon Cordova, Jose Francisco de Cordova, Mariano, Lie. Cornejo, Jose Maria First 1826 1790 1820 1820 1821 1784 1826 1825 1841 1786 1842 1837 1832 1813 1834 1826 1813 1830 1849 1826 1827 1826 1841 1826 1816 1825 1821 1843 1836 1848 1811 1849 1823 Last 1827 1791 1820 1820 1821 1785 1827 1825 1841 1802 1843 1837 1835 1814 1834 1827 1814 1830 1849 1827 1839 1831 1842 1825 1817 1838 1829 1851 1846 1849 1821 1851 1824 Positions 1826-7: R 1790-1:R 1820a/b: R 1820b:R 1821:R 1784-5: RB 1826-7: R R R 1786; 1792-1804:R; 1787:A2; 1788:A1 18277,1842-3 :R; 18277,1843 :A2 A2 1832-3, 1835:R 1813-14a: R A2 1826: S2; 1827: SI 1813-14a:R SI R 1826: S2; 1827: R 1827 (not serve), 1831,1838b, 1839a: R; 1831, 1834:S2; 1835:S1 1826: A3; 1831: A2 1841-2:R R: not serve 1816-7: R 1825-6/1831-2,1838a:R; 1829b:A2; 1826:A1 1821-2: R; 1829a: A3 1843: R, 1851: A3 1836, 1846: R 1848-9: R 181 l-1814a; 1820b-1821: Sec 1849, 1850:S2; 1849, 1851: SI 1823b-4: R
469
Appendix K: Town Councilors, Guatemala, 1784-1850 (cont.) NAME Coronado, Ignacio de Cortes, Domingo Corzo, Andres Corzo, Candido (Corso) Croquer y Mufioz, Julian Croquer, Jose Maria Dardon, Andres, Lie. Dardon, Manuel, Lie. Dardon, Marcos, Lie. De I.eon, Francisco de Leon, Jose Maria Dieguez, Jose Domingo, Lie. Diegues, Juan, Lie. Dieguez, Manuel, Lie. Dighero, Eugenio Duran, Juaquin Echeverria Ruiz, Jose Echeverria, Juan (Emiterio) Echeverria, Juan Jose Escobar, Crecencio Escobar, Pedro Escobedo Rafael, Lie. Espanol y Lopez, Juan Ant. Espada, Andres Espinosa, Juan Esquivel, Carlos Estrada, Jose Domingo, Lie. Estrada, Jose Maria Estrada, Juan Estrada, Manuel, Lie. Farfan, Jose Fernandez Gil, Jose Frco. Fernandez, Francisco Ferrer, Rafael Flores, (Jose) Quirino Flores, Jose Maria, Lie. Flores, Pedro (Jose-1832) First 1790 1823 1829 1826 1792 1823 1848 1843 1836 1830 1830 1820 1838 1849 1841 1823 1823 1819 1815 1831 1825 1846 1820 1829 1823 1829 1845 1845 1831 1850 1850 1788 1823 1790 1823 1847 1828 Last 1791 1823 1834 1831 1793 1823 1848 1844 1846 1838 1830 1820 1844 1849 1842 1826 1825 1823 1818 1832 1826 1849 1821 1829 1823 1830 1845 1845 1834 1851 1851 1791 1823 1805 1846 1847 1832 Positions 1790-1: R 1823b: S2 1829b-31; 1833-4: Sec 1826-7, 1831: R 1792-3: R 1823: S2;1823b: SI S2,S1: 1848 1843: S2; 1844: SI 1836,1846: A l 1838a: R; 1830: A3 R: not serve 1820b: R 1844: S2; 1838a: SI S2 1841-2: R 1823b, 1824: SI; 1836: A2 1823b-1825: R 1819: R; 1823a/b: A3 1815-6: R; 1818: A2 1831-2: R; 1831: A3 1825-6: R 1849: R; 1846: S2,S1 1820b-l: R R: not serve R 1829b-l830: R Al R 1831: S2; 1832: SI; 1834: Al 1850-1: R 1850-1: R 1788-9: R; 1791: A2 R 1790-1; 1794-1805: R; 1823b-4, 1846: R; 1832: Al S2 1828,1829a, 1830:R 1832: A3
470
Appendix K: Town Councilors, Guatemala, 1784-1850 (cont.) NAME Galvez y Corral, Jose Mmo Galvez, Mariano Jose Galvez, Pedro Galvez, Xristobal (Silberio) Gandara, Jose Ysidro Garcia Goyena, Jose Garcia Granados, Jose Garcia Granados, Juaquin Garcia Granados, Miguel Garcia Zelaya, Jose Garrido, Baltasar Garrido, Claudio Gatica, Dionicio Gomara, Ambrosio Gomez, Jose Gonzalez Cerezo, Miguel (^Father & son?) Gonzalez Dardon, Ygnacio Gonzalez, Diego Gonzalez, Julian Gonzalez, Ygnacio, Lie. Gorris, Pedro Jose de Gorriz, Jorge Gorriz, Juan Jose Guerra, Juan Jose Guzman, Juaquin (Gusman) Hernandez, Juan de Jesus Hernandez, Pablo Hernandez, Rafael Herrarte, Mariano Hurtado, Lazaro Jauregui, Felipe Jauregui, Manuel Jose First 1814 1822 1825 1784 1823 1795 1813 1824 1844 1810 1835 1825 1838 1784 1823 1809 1814 1843 1829 1844 1806 1815 1820 1830 1830 1832 1825 1833 1827 1826 1834 1832 Last 1814 1822 1834 1797 1825 1795 1814 1825 1845 1815 1835 1830 1838 1794 1835 1849 1814 1844 1844 1851 1806 1816 1820 1830 1837 1843 1849 1836 1827 1826 1834 1832 Positions Al 1822: S2 1832, 1825: SI; 1834: A3 1784-5;1790-1:R; 1786:A2; 1797:A1 1823b-1825: R 1795:S 1813-14a: R 1824-5: R 1844-5: R 1810: Sec; 1815; S A3 1829b-1830:R; 1825:A3 (not sve) 1838a: R 1784-5;88:R; 1789:A2; 1790, 1794: Al 1823b: R; 1835: A3 1808a, 1831: S; 1809b-1810, 1845: R; 1849: A l 1814a: R 1843-4; R 1829a, 1844; R; 1833: A3 1844, 1850-1: R 1806: A2 1815-6: R 1820b:R A3 1830-1,1832,1837:R; 1832: A2 1832, 1843:R 1825, 1832-3; 1845, 1848-9:R; 1839a: A3 1833-4; 1836: R SI (excused fin service) R: not serve SI Al
471
Appendix K: Town Councilors, Guatemala, 1784-1850 (cont.) NAME Juarros y Lacunza, Antonio Juarros, Manuel Josef Lopez, Jose Venancio, Lie. Lambur, Buenaventura Lambur, Rafael Laparte, Joseph Manuel de Lara Pavon, Cayetano Lara Pavon, Jose Maria Lara Pavon, Pedro Lara y Arreze, Manuel Jose,L Lara, Nicolas Lara, Pedro Juan de Larraonda, Pedro Larrave, Jose Antonio, Lie. Larrave, Jose Ignacio Larrave, Mariano, MD Lazalde, Manuel Leiva, Juan Jose Lemus, Bernardino, Lie. Llerena, Jose Maria Lopez, Antonio Lopez, Jose Antonio Lopez, Mariano Lorenzana, Juan Mariano Luna, Juan Machado, Santiago Malagamba Vallarino, Geronimo Mancilla, Manuel Manrrique Guzman, Juan, Col Manrrique, Miguel Jose, Cap Manzanares, Matias de First 1803 1776 1814 1830 1826 1787 1842 1849 1838 1807 1838 1790 1823 1820 1825 1821 1786 1825 1814 1833 1834 1831 1828 1825 1827 1831 1818 1841 1784 1814 1784 Last 1814 1791 1820 1843 1826 1800 1842 1849 1839 1815 1838 1806 1827 1838 1829 1821 1787 1825 1825 1833 1834 1843 1846 1825 1827 1836 1819 1842 1795 1821 1786 Positions 1803-7; 1809a/b; 13 :R; 1808,14b:Al 1784-5,1790-1:R; 1776:A2; 1779,1787:A1 1814a, 1820b: S2 1830 (not serve), 1843: R R Sec R S2 1838b: S2; 1839a/b: SI 1807-9a, 1811,1814b:R; 1815:A2 1838a: R 1791; 1794-1806:R, 1790:S; 1793:A2 1823, 1827: R 1820b-l:R; 1838a/b:A2 toAl 1827: R; 1829b: SI; 1825: A2 1821: A l 1786-7: R S2 1814:A1; 1825:S2 (x serve) Sec Al(prob. same as Jo. Ant.) 1831: R; 1843: A2 1828, 1838b, 1839a, 1846: R; 1846:A2 R R 1831, 1835, 1836: R 1818-9: R 1841-2: R 1784-5; 1789,1792-4.R; 1795:A1 1814a, 1818-9, 1820b-l:R 1784-5: R; 1786:A1
472
Appendix K: Town Councilors, Guatemala, 1784-1850 (cont.) NAME Marticorena, Jose Maria Marticorena, Juan Bautista Marticorena, Miguel Jacinto de Martines, Tomas Martinez de Escobar, Fco. Martinez Pacheco, Francisco Martinez Zevallos, Jose Ma. Martinez, Jose Antonio Martinez, Juan (Antonio) Martinez, Matias, Lie. Mateu, R Matheu, Juan Matheu, Miguel Meany, Carlos Antonio Melon, Sebastian Mendes, Jose Ignacio Mendia, Jose Maria Mendia, Miguel Mendizabal, Juan Mendizabal, Rafael, Lie. Mexia, Mariano Mexia, Ventura, Lie (Mejia) Micheo, Juan Sebastian Micheo, Mariano Milla, Jose Mi 11a, Santiago Miron, Mariano Molina, Miguel Montealegre, Fernando Montufar, Manuel, Lie. Morejon, Quirino First 1825 1792 1806 1835 1829 1786 1801 1845 1825 1838 1830 1830 1843 1836 1803 1840 1830 1844 1834 1846 1834 1836 1816 1847 1848 1827 1825 1824 1847 1849 1831 Last 1826 1815 1817 1836 1829 1792 1805 1845 1838 1850 1830 1845 1844 1842 1813 1840 1844 1845 1834 1847 1835 1836 1816 1847 1848 1827 1825 1831 1847 1850 1846 Positions 1825-6: R 1811-2; 1815 :R; 1792.S; 1797:A2; 1801, 1805: A l 1807-1810; 1814b; 1817: R; 1806: S 1835-6: R 1829a: R 1786-7; 1790-1 :R; 1792:A1 Sec A2 1825,1831-2, 1837,1838b: R 1841,1850:R; 1838a:S2; 1838b:Sl; 1845:A1 R 1830, 1832, 1836, 1837, 1838b, 1845: R ; 1833, 1841:A1 1843-4: R 1836: R; 1842: Al 1809b-10:R; 1803:S;1813: A l A2 1830-1, 1836, 1843-4: R 1844-5:R R 1846: S2; 1847: SI 1834-5: R 1836: S2; 1837: SI R R SI S2 R 1831 :S2; 1824,1830,1831:S1 R 1849: S2; 1850: SI 1831-2, 1846: R
473
Appendix K: Town Councilors, Guatemala, 1784-1850 (cont.) NAME Moreno, Lorenzo Moreno, Mariano, Lie. Moreno, Salvador Moreno, Santiago, Lie. Munos, Jose Maria Murga, Eusebio, Dr. Murga, Macario Murilla, Jose Naxera Mencos, Manuel Naxera y Mendes, Mariano de Naxera, Diego, Maestro Naxera, Jose (Najera) Noriega, Jose Maria/Manuel Obregon, Nicolas de Oliver, Enrique Oliver, Juan Oliver, Manuel Orantes, Gregorio, Lie. Ortiz de Aviles, Xristobal, Lie Ortiz, Jose Ortiz, Manuel, Lie. Oyarzabal, Juan Pedro de Pacheco y Beteta, Francisco Pacheco, Francisco Padilla. Antonio, Lie. Padilla, Faustino Palacios Palacios y Panero, Mariano Palacios, Manuel Palacios, Mateo Palacios, Ramon Palomo Valdes, Antonio Palomo Valdez, Manuel First 1810 1826 1830 1819 1825 1834 1835 1819 1807 1789 1814 1827 1823 1789 1827 1786 1824 1833 1796 1825 1844 1788 1800 1825 1845 1828 1828 1827 1823 1826 1840 1842 1840 Last 1813 1833 1830 1825 1825 1847 1836 1820 1807 1789 1814 1846 1831 1793 1827 1786 1845 1847 1803 1825 1844 1793 1812 1825 1845 1848 1828 1827 1837 1833 1847 1842 1850 Positions 1813:R; 1810: A2; 1811; Al 1826: R; 1830:A3; 1833: Al A3 1819-20; 1825: R A2 1835, 1847: R 1835-6: R 1819-20: R 1807: SI (not serve) 1789:S 1814a: R 1839b-40: R; 1827, 1832 (J): A2; 1835, 1846: A l 1823:Sec; 183l:A l(x serve) 1789-93 (Buys RS in 1770) Sec 1786:R 1824-5; 1834-5:R; 1829a:A2,1845 A3 1833: S2; 1847: A l 1796, 1803: Al R R: x toma posesion 1788-9, 1792-3: R 1811-12: R; 1800:S R:?Same as Pacheco Beteta? S2 1831, 1838a, 1839a/b, 1842: R; 1828: A3; 1848:A2; 1834: Al SI SI 1823b-4; 1830: R; 1826: A2; 1837: Al 1829a:R; 1826:A2; 1833: Al 1844-5:R; 1840:A3; 1847:A2 R, A2: 1842 1840-1: R; 1850: A2
474
Appendix K: Town Councilors, Guatemala, 1784-1850 (cont.) NAME Palomo, Antonio Isidro, Lie Palomo, Jose Ignacio, Lie. Palomo, Jose Maria Pavon y Mufioz, Cayetano Jose Pavon y Mufioz, Domingo Jose Pavon y Mufioz, Manuel Josef Pavon y Mufioz, Vicente Pavon, Juan Pavon Aycinena, Manuel, Lie. Payes y Font, Juan Payes, Domingo Peinado, Josef Maria Peinado, Manuel Perales, Manuel-Sanchez de Perez Brito, Francisco, Col Perez, Benito Petit, Jose Pielago, Vicente Pilona, Jose Alvarez Pilona, Jose Vicente Pineda, Manuel Pinol y Mufioz, Tadeo Pifiol, Juan Jose Pinol y Aycinena, Manuel Pinol y Aycinena, Tadeo Pisna, Mariano Poggio, Felix Antonio Polanco, Cleto Ponce, Jorge Porras, (Jose) Bacilio Portugal, Jacinto Prado, Felipe First 1792 1812 1839 1786 1802 1790 1815 1839 1848 1790 1822 1794 1817 1821 1814 1841 1821 1817 1823 1843 1846 1786 1835 1839 1844 1822 1813 1834 1835 1823 1822 1827 Last 1812 1812 1840 1810 1828 1810 1820 1844 1848 1812 1850 1819 1817 1826 1814 1841 1828 1820 1825 1844 1847 1806 1851 1839 1844 1823 1817 1834 1839 1846 1822 1840 Positions 1792:Asesor, 1806-1812:R; 1801:A2 1812:S 1839b: S2; 1840: SI 1786-7:R; 1788:A2; 1789,1796,1802:A1 1813:R; 1802:S, 1811:A2; 1816,1828:A1 1790-1,1794-5: RB; 1796-1806, 1809b, 1810: R; 1796:A2 1815; R; 1817:A2; 1820: A l 1839b, 1840, 1844: R Al 1790-4: R; 1811-2: R 1849-50: R; 1822: A l 1794-1819:R/DepGral; 1812:A1 1817: SI 1821-2; 1826: R; 1823b: A3 1814a: R R 1821-2: R; 1827-8: R 1817-7: R; 1829a: A2 1823b-5: R; 1825: A3 1843-4: R 1846-7: R 1786-7:R; 1790:A2; 1806:A1 1842-3,1848,1851:R; 1835: A3 1839a: A2 A3 1822-3: R 1813-14a: R; 1816-7: R 1834:R 1839a: R; 1835: A l 1823b,1831:R;1841:S; 1831: A2; 1846: A2 A3 1839b-: R; 1827: SI
475
Appendix K: Town Councilors, Guatemala, 1784-1850 (cont.) NAME Prem, Juan Presilla, Juan de Quesada, Juan Quevedo, Mariano Quezada, Jose Maria Quifiones, Romualdo Quiros, Esteban Quiros, Tiburcio Ramires, Manuel Ramirez, Jose Maria Ramirez, Manuel Rafael, Lie Ramirez, Ramon Rivas, Jose Juaquin Rivas, Valerio Rivera Cabezas, Antonio Rivera Paz, Jacinto, Lie. Rivera Paz, Mariano Rivera, Antonio, Lie. Rivera, Julian Rivera, Manuel, Lie. Robles, Antonio, Lie. Roca, Luis de la Rodriguez Taboada, Ambrocio Roma y Asturias, Jose Mariano Roma, Luis Roma, Rafael Rosa, Jacobo Rosales, Toribio Rosales, Victor Ruano, Jose Maria Rubin, Manuel (Rubi) Rubio y Gemmir, Juan Miguel Rubio, Jose Rubio, Manuel First 1839 1785 1847 1826 1832 1821 1823 1835 1834 1834 1806 1815 1786 1826 1848 1845 1848 1824 1841 1843 1820 1836 1792 1784 1787 1819 1829 1822 1846 1832 1842 1784 1835 1833 Last 1839 1786 1847 1826 1833 1822 1824 1836 1834 1835 1820 1820 1787 1826 1848 1849 1848 1824 1845 1849 1821 1836 1800 1812 1787 1819 1829 1823 1847 1832 1843 1802 1842 1839 Positions 1839a: R Mayordomo de Propios A2 R R 1821-2: R 1823b-4: R 1835-6:R S2 1834-5: R 1806-7:SEC; 1814a, 1820b:R 1815:R; 1817:A1; 1820b:Al 1786-7:R R A2 1849: R; 1845.S2; 1846: SI Al A l, possibly A3 1841, 1844-5: R 1843: S2; 1849: A2 1820: Asesor; 1821: A3 R 1792-3: R; 1800: A2 1784-5,1788-9:R; 1791,1800, 1804,1812: A l R (or L Fco Barrutia y Roma) S 1829b: SI 1822-3: R 1846-7: R R 1842-3: R 1784-5: RB, 1802: Al 1835: S2; 1842: A2 1833-4: R, 1839b: A3
476
Appendix K: Town Councilors, Guatemala, 1784-1850 (cont.) NAME Ruis, Santiago Ruiz Santi Estevan, Regial Ruiz, Miguel Rusitan, Francisco Saborio, Ramon Saens, Jose Antonio (Juan?) Saenz, Benedicto (Saens) Saenz de Tejada, Antonio Saisar, Miguel Salazar, Francisco Salazar, Jose Gregorio Salmon (de Castafiedo), Fco Salmon, Manuel Samayoa, Eulalio Samayoa, Felipe Samayoa, Jose Maria Samayoa, Mariano Samayoa, Ramon, Lie. Sanchez, Ambrosio Sanchez, Dionisio San Juan, Jose Miguel de Santa Cruz, Jose Modesto Santa Cruz, Juan Eusebio Saravia, Miguel Saravia, Salvador, Lie Sarti, Jose Segura, Domingo (Gomez de) Seron, Pedro Jose (Zeron) Sinivaldi, Alejandro? Solis, Jose Antonio (Lie.) Sologastua, Pedro Jose Solorzano, Santiago Suniga, Florentin Taboada, Antonio First 1835 1850 1848 1827 1827 1829 1823 1799 1830 1826 1822 1813 1830 1830 1830 1832 1829 1849 1823 1848 1788 1823 1817 1836 1849 1832 1823 1823 1847 1823 1821 1830 1825 1822 Last 1835 1850 1848 1827 1827 1830 1838 1809 1831 1825 1825 1816 1833 1849 1831 1833 1830 1850 1824 1849 1789 143 1817 1836 1849 1833 1831 1831 1847 1824 1829 1830 1838 1827 Positions R R R A3 R 1829b-30:R 1823b, 1831,1838b:R; 1834:S2 1799: S; 1800-1809b: RP 1830: S2; 1831: SI R 1822-3: R; 1825: A1 1813, 1816: A2 1830: R (x serve); 1833:A3 1830-1; 1848-9: R 1830-1: R R 1829b-30,1838a:R; 1832:S2; 1836: A1 1849-50: R 1823b-4: A2 1848-9: R 1788-9: RB 1823b:R; 1830: A3; 1843:A1 A2 SI A3 R 1823,1828,1829a:R; 1831:A1 1823, 1823b, 1827, 1828 (x serve):R; 1824, 1827, 1831: A1 R 1823b-4: R 1821-2; 1828-29a; R S: not serve 1825,1838a: S2; 1826: SI 1822-3: R; 1826: A3-x serve 1827: A3
477
Appendix K: Town Councilors, Guatemala, 1784-1850 (cont.) NAME Taboada, Juan Francisco Taboada Asturias, Juan, Lie Taboada, Manuel Taborga, Ygnacio Tejada, Eusebio Tejada, Manuel Tejada, Pedro Toledo, Enrique Alvarez de Toledo, Juan Manuel Toledo, Leon Angel de Trulle, Rafael Ubico, Domingo Ubico, Manuel, Lie. Uriarte Juan Umiela y Casares, Gregorio Urruela, Jose de Urruela, Manuel Urruela y Angulo, Gregorio Urruela y Caseres, Rafael Urruela y Urruela, Juan Fco Ururela y Urruela, Jose Maria, Lie. Diaz Cabeza de Vaca, Alejandro, Dr. Vaca, Alexo Valdes, Jose Valdes, Jose Francisco (Valdez) Valdes, Juaquin (padre y hijo?) Valdes, Liverato, Lie. Valdes, Martin de Valdez, Tomas Valenzuela, Francisco Xavier, Lie. Valenzuela, Pedro Jose, Dr. First 1801 1842 1839 1829 1827 1846 1850 1832 1826 1833 1815 1786 1840 1843 1786 1813 1832 1828 1822 1838 1827 1813 1833 1827 1813 1796 1849 1788 1846 1822 1821 Last 1812 1842 1840 1829 1827 1846 1850 1832 1826 1842 1816 1786 1840 1846 1813 1819 1850 1841 1832 1843 1848 1817 1840 1829 1824 1843 1847 1799 1846 1842 1824 Positions 1811-2:R; 1801:S; 1804:A2 S2 1839b~40: R 8129b:R R 1846-7: R R R R 1833-4, 1842:R R S S2 1846: R; 1843: A3, A1 1786-7; 1790; 1811-3: R; 1809a/b; A1 1813, 1815-6: R; 1819: A1 1832, 1850: R; 1835: A1 1828-9a, 1840a:R; 1832a:Al 1822-3b:R; 1826:A3;1832:A1 (x serve) 1838b-1839b, 1842-3: R 1827, 1845-8: R; 1831: SI; 1831: SI; 1848: A2; 1836:A1 1816-7: R; 1813-14a: S 1833, 1839b, 1840: R 1827: R; 1829a: A l? 1813-I4a; 1816-7: R; 1823: A2; 1823b: A l, 1824: A l 1796: A2(pdre?); 1818-9; 1825-7:R 1835:A3; 1843:A2; 1829a,1840: A l A2 1788-9:R; 1798:A2; 1799:A1 R 1827, 1836:R; 1822:S2; 1823.S1; 1842: A3; 1834:A1 1821: R; 1824; S
478
Appendix K: Town Councilors, Guatemala, 1784-1850 (cont.) NAME Valero, Fernando, Lie. Valero, Manuel Valido, Pio Valle Castriciones, Isidoro Valle, Jose Cecilio del, Lie. Vasconcelos, Ramon, Lie. Vega Piloto, Manuel, Lie. Velasco, Jose Maria Velasco, Jose Ramon Vidaurre, Francisco Vidaurre, Juaquin Villacorta, Damian, Lie. Villegas, Julian Ximenez Rubio, Lorenzo Ydalgo, Camilo Yela, Gregorio Yela, Julian Yela, Manuel Yela, Rafael Yrias, Crisanto Yrigoyen, Juan Ignacio Yrungaray, Mateo Ysasi, Jose Yturbuma, Martin Yturrios, Juan Angel de Yzquierdo Zavala, Manuel, Lie Zavala, Victor Zebadua, Marcial Zecena, Clemente Zelaya, Jose Ramon, Capt. Zirion, Antonio First 1823 1823 1825 1817 1821 1847 1840 1829 1850 1833 1823 1823 1827 1788 1836 1841 1814 1833 1831 1847 1817 1786 1808 1819 1794 1847 1844 1824 1818 1834 1814 1836 Last 1829 1825 1829 1822 1826 1849 1841 1830 1851 1838 1824 1824 1847 1788 1848 1841 1818 1847 1831 1847 1827 1787 1815 1820 1794 1847 1845 1825 1839 1837 1814 1836 Positions 1823:S2; 1828:S2; 1829b:Al 1823: SI; 1825: A2 1829b: R; 1825:A2; 1825:A1 1817-8; 1821-2: R 1821, 1826 (x serve):Al 1847-49: R; 1848: A l 1840-1:R 1829b; R; 1830: Al 1850: R; 1850, 1851: Al 1838b: R; 1833: A3 (x serve); 1836:A2 1823b~4: R; 1823b: S 1823b-4: S2 1827, 1840-1, 1847: R S 1836,1838b-39b, 1845,1847-1848: R A3 1814a, 1817-8: R 1833-4, 1847: R; 1837: S2 R R 1817-18; 1827: R 1786-7: R 1809b-10:R; 1808,1814b:A2; 1815:A1 1819-20:R S A2 1844: S2; 1845: SI 1824-5: R 1818: S; 1839a: A l 1834-5, 1837: R 1814a: R R
A- Alcalde (mayor), S-Syndico (Syndic), R-Regidor (alderman). See end o f Appendix M for sources and fuller key.
479
Appendix L: Town Councilors, Tegucigalpa, 1787-1850 NAME ACEITUNO, Antonio AGUERO, Carlos AGUERO, Jose Maria AGURCIA, Jose Maria ALCANTARA, Jose Maria ALCANTARA, Juan Manuel ALCANTARA, Manuel Antonio ALCAYA y VIGO, Juan ALVARADO, Lorenso ANRIQUEZ, Silberio (Hanriquez) (Henrriquez) ARGUETA, Luis ARIZA, Pasqual, MD (Hariza) ARRAZOLA, Pedro BARELA, Eusebio (Varela) BONILLA, Jose Maria BORJAS, Geronimo BORJAS, Joaquin BORJAS, Miguel Antonio BORJAS, Pablo BOTELO, Felipe BRAN, Martin BRITO, Luis BUESO SOTOMAYOR, Santiago BUSTAMANTE, Fernando BUSTAMANTE, Miguel Eusebio First 1842 1836 1834 1834 1840 1801 1802 1821 1840 1830 1825 1828 1825 1839 1840 1788 1806 1806 1804 1816 1839 1822 1821 1843 1807 Last 1848 1836 1834 1834 1848 1819 1806 1821 1842 1843 1836 1829 1825 1839 1841 1798 1806 1806 1827 1817 1847 1834 1829 1843 1823 Positions 1843,1847,1848:R; 1842: Asesor RD A2 R 1840-1, 1844, 1846: R; 1848: A2 1803-4; 1806-1812; 1815-6, 1819:R; 1801: A2; 1802: A l 1802: S; 1806: A l R/A1DV 1840-2: R 1830-1, 1836, 1842-3: R 1825-6,1835: R; 1836-S 1828-9: S R R R 1788, 1798: A2 MP S 1813-4; 1827:R; 1804, 181: ASH; 1815; A2; 1820a: A l 1816-7: MP 1839, 1842-3, 1846-7: R 1822, 1834: Al 1821-2; 1829: R A2 1818, 1820a: R/AP; 1820b: R; 1807, 1811, 1816: ASH; 1814: A2; 1823: Al
480
Appendix L: Town Councilors, Tegucigalpa, 1787-1850 (continued) NAME BUSTILLOS, Joaquin BUSTILLOS, Nicolas BUSTILLOS, Pio BUSTILLOS, Roque BUSTILLOS, Secundino CALONA, Je. Encamacion CAMINOS, Vicente CANO, Bias CARCAMO YRIAS, Gregorio CARLAS, Pedro CARLAS, Pedro Jose CASTILLO, Jose CASTRO, Atanacio CASTRO, Cayetano CASTRO, Juan Ygnacio CERRA Y VIGIL, Jose CERRATO, Antonio CERRATO, Domingo (Serrato) CERRATO, Juan Bautista CONTRERAS, Jose Gregorio CONTRERAS, Mauricio CUBAS, Crecencio CUBAS, Dionicio CUBAS, Rafael Jose DAVILA, Faustino DAVILA, Guillermo DIAS, Rafael Camilo Duarte de Garaicoa, Manuel DURAN, Jose DUNAS HARIZA, Francisco Maria, Tte. First 1848 1823 1843 1823 1827 1842 1825 1826 1805 1833 1837 1828 1830 1831 1833 1811 1838 1838 1825 1826 1823 1829 1831 1827 1845 1829 1845 1797 1840 1791 Last 1848 1823 1844 1823 1827 1842 1826 1845 1807 1834 1842 1828 1850 1840 1850 1812 1839 1848 1825 1831 1823 1838 1831 1836 1849 1830 1848 1805 1841 1808 Positions R R 1843-4: R R 1827a/b: R S 1825-6: R 1826, 1845: R; 18271, 1830: A2 1805: S; 1807: A l 1833-4: R 1837-8; 1840-1, 1842; R R 1830-LR; 1832-50:Sec 1840: R(renuncia); 1831, 1833, 1839: Sec interino 1833-4,1845-6:R; 1872,1850: Al 1811: A2; 1812: A l (to revolt) Tesorero Municipal 1838-9,1843,1846-8: R R 1826, 1831: Sec interino R 1829, 1832-3,1837-8:R Al 1827b, 1836: R 1845-6; 1849 (renuncia): R 1829-30:R 1847-8: R; 1845: A l 1797, 1803, 1805; Al R 1805; R/ADV; 1791: A2; 1792, 1808: A l (1808: Fco Ariza)
481
Appendix L: Town Councilors, Tegucigalpa, 1787-1850 (continued) NAME ESCOBAR, Bias ESCOBAR, Manuel ESPINAL, Calisto ESPINOSA, Joaquin (Espinoza) ESTRADA, Atanacio ESTRADA, Felipe ESTRADA, Juan ESTRADA, Pedro ESTRADA, Rafael FERNANDES, Laureano FERRARI, Jose FERRERA, (Jose) Ynes FIALLOS ALLANSE, Jose Tiburcio FIALLOS, Antonio Ramon FIALLOS, Eusebio FIALLOS, Jose Francisco FIALLOS, Jose Maria FIALLOS, Manuel FIALLOS, Manuel Francisco FIGUEROA, Vicente First 1828 1845 1821 1808 Last 1847 1845 1821 1827 Positions 1828-9. 1832-3, 1843-4, 1846b7: R; 1839: A2; 1844: MP R (renuncia) R (x toma psn?) 1808-1817; 1827a: RS (renun 1817); 1809, 1812: A2; 1815, 1827b: A l (27b:just Espinoza) 1825:S1; 1827b: A l 1840-1, 1843-4, 1846 (renun): R; 1847: A2 1821-2:R 1830-1: R; 1832-50: Sec 1829: R; 1830: S; 1841; MP R 1840, 1841, 1843: A l A2 1802-3: ASH; 1803, 1813:A2; 1804: A l 1827b, 180, 1845 (renun): R; 1833: A2; 1840: A 1 1842-3: R; 1846: A l A2 R 1844-6: R S 1826, 1843, 1845 (renun): R; 1832: S; 1835:R or A; 1843: MP 1827b-8: R R 1826-27b: R 1807: ASH; 1820: A2 A2 A2 RD
1825 1840 1821 1830 1829 1844 1840 1842 1802 1827 1842 1819 1850 1844 1807 1826 1827 1832 1826 1807 1822 1825 1813
1827 1847 1822 1831 1830 1844 1843 1842 1813 1845 1846 1819 1850 1846 1807 1845
FLORES, Raimundo FUNES, Miguel GALINDO, Balentin GALINDO, Serapio (Cerapio) GARAY, Juan Antonio GARAY, Simeon GARDELA, Francisco
1828 1832 1827 1820 1822 1825 1813
482
Appendix L: Town Councilors, Tegucigalpa, 1787*1850 (continued) NAME GOMES, Fernando GOMES, Juan GOMES, Vicente GOMEZ, Basilio GOMEZ, Justo GONZALEZ AGUERO, Rafael GONZALEZ de CASTRO, Mnl. GONZALEZ TRAVIESO, Fco Antonio GUARDIOLA, Estevan GUERRERO, Miguel Maria First 1816 1845 1830 1821 1839 1787 1804 1789 1821 1799 Last 1816 1850 1831 1821 1839 1787 1806 1803 1821 1806 Positions ASH 1845-6: R; 1850: A l 1830-1: R R R A2 1804-5: MP; 1806: A2 1789:R; 1792-1803: R/AR;1796:A1 A l(2) 1801-1806: R/Alg May; 1799: A2 1821-2: R 1834-5: R 1827a/b: A l 1839, 1845-46b: R Ale de Campo 1820b-1821: Sec SI
GUTIERREZ, Dionicio 1821 1822 GUTIERREZ, Eusebio 1834 1835 GUTIERREZ, Jose Maria 1827 1827 HANRRIQUEZ, Ygnacio 1839 1846 HERNANDES, Macedonio 1843 1843 HERRERA, Dionicio 1820 1821 HERRERA,Jose Justo 1813 1813 Justo J HERRERA, Juan Jacinto 1789 1809 1789-1809: R/AP JUARES, Francisco 1821 1829 1821-2: R; 1829: A l or R/ADV LAGOS, Guadalupe 1823 1825 1823: S; 1825: Al LANDA, Calisto 1838 1838 R LAND A, Francisco 1848 1848 R LANDA, Pedro 1788 1792 1788: MP; 1791-2: S? Buenaventura LANZA, Eligio 1828 1829 1828-9: R LANZA, Pedro 1847 1847 R LARDIZABAL, Jose 1812 1820 1812: ASH; 1814:S;1820b:R or Miguel S LARDIZABAL, Leocadio 1834 1849 1834: R, 1849: A2 LASTIRE, Juan Miguel 1803 1803 A 2(l) A- Alcalde (mayor), S-Syndico (syndic), R-Regidor (alderman). See end o f Appendix M for fuller key.
483
Appendix L: Town Councilors, Tegucigalpa, 1787-1850 (continued) NAME LAVAQUI (Labaqui), Benito Lorenzo de Laynes ??? LAYNES, Atanacio LAYNES, George (Laines) LAYNES, Miguel LAZO, Agapito LAZO, Francisco LAZO, Sotero LEIVA, Jose LINDO, Joaquin LOPEZ, Ysidoro LOZANO, Andres LOZANO, Calisto LOZANO, Francisco (Losano) LOZANO, Joaquin LOZANO, Jose Maria LOZANO, Leon LOZANO, Miguel Antonio LUQUE, Manuel MARCELLA, Francisco MARIN, Basilio MARQUEZ, Jose Antonio MARQUEZ, Jose Manuel (MARQUES) (Joseph) MARTINES, Leandro MEDINA, Crisanto MEDINA, (Jose) Tomas MEDRANO, Francisco MELARA, Victoriano MEXIA, Ciriaco ! First 1800 1840 1849 1824 1823 1826 1820 1849 1803 1818 1840 1813 1804 1823 1830 1828 1827 1836 1801 1827 1816 1822 1788 1839 1848 1822 1848 1840 1842 Last 1811 1840 1850 1824 1837 1846 1835 1849 1809 1819 1840 1840 1804 1838 1830 1832 1827 1836 1802 1827 1817 1823 1814 1839 1848 1827 1848 1848 1842 Positions 1809-1811; RS; 1809: A l; 1800: Dip Cons (1807: postor) A l: Fiallos per Garay 1849-50b:R A2 1823, 1827a/b, 1837: R; 1830: A l (1837? ADV or A) 1826-7, 1846 (renun): R; 182931, 1839: Sec 1820b,1835:R; 1834:S; 1828: A l R 1803-9: ASH Sec/Esno A2 1820b: R; 1813-4: S2; 1840: Ts S 1823: R; 1838: A2 R 1828-9: R; 1832: A2 1827b:R A2 MP 1827b:R 1816-7: Al 1822-3: R 1807, 1809, 1814: R; 1798, 1812: A l; 1788 (DV?) R R 1822-3: R; 1827b: A2 R 1840, 1848: R R
484
Appendix L: Town Councilors, Tegucigalpa, 1787-1850 (continued) NAME MIDENSE, Antonio MIDENSE, Bacilio (MIDENCE) MIDENSE, Francisco MIDENSE, J. Miguel (Midence) MIDENSE, Manuel Jose (Midence) MIDENSE, (Jose)Ramon MIDENSE, Tomas (Midence) MOLINA, Cesar MONCADA, Aureliano MONCADA, Francisco MONCADA, Julian MONCADA, Liberato MONCADA, Martin MONCADA, Zotero (Sotero) MORAZAN, Eucebio MORAZAN, Francisco MO RE IRA (Moreyra), Gregorio OCHOA, Fortunato OQUELY, Pablo PALOMO, Nicolas PARDO, Manuel PAVON, Nicolas PA VON, Vicente (PABON) PENA Juan MIGUEL PERES, Justo, Lie. PERES, Pedro PERES, Vicente PLANAS, Francisco First 1790 1795 1808 1795 1788 1842 1801 Last 1790 1802 1812 1805 1801 1850 1827 Positions ADV? 1795,1797; 1801,1802:R; 1797:A2 1808, 1812; ASH 1794, 1805-09:RP; 1796:A2; 1800: A l 1794-1801: RP; 1799: A l 1842-3; 1846b, 1848-9: R; 1850: A3 (x serve) 1813-4; 1820-l,1827a/b: R; 1801, 1803: ASH; 1804: A2;1819: Al Al 1846-7: R 1827b: R; 1829: Secretario 1845,1848:Ale. D Campo Sec 1827a/b: R 1850b:R 1830-1: R 1819: Sec; 1822-3: R 1838-9, 1840-1, 1842, 1845-6:R 1840: R; 1838: S 1831-2:R; 1838:A2 (not serve) 1832-3: R 1828-9: R 1837-8: R R Alcalde de Campo R: underage; so not serve 1834-5,1840-1, 1848:R; 1829:A2; 1846, 1849: A l R/ADV S
1848 1846 1827 1845 1822 1827 1850 1830 1819 1838 1838 1831 1832 1828 1837 1830 1842 1850 1829 1846 1849
1848 1847 1829 1848 1822 1827 1850 1830 1823 1846 1840 1838 1833 1829 1838 1830 1842 1850 1849 1846 1849
485
Appendix L: Town Councilors, Tegucigalpa, 1787-1850 (continued) NAME QUINONES, Benito RAMIREZ, Bartolome RAMIREZ, Francisco RECONCO, Calixto RECONCO, Lucas RETES, Severino REYES, Bernardo REYES, Carlos REYES, Felipe Santos REYES, Francisco REYES, Jose Domingo RIVAS, Ysidoro RIVERA, Estevan RIVERA, Gregorio RIVERA, Guillermo de RIVERA, Juan Bautista RIVERA, Manuel Antonio ROBELO, Miguel, Lie. ROD AS, Jose Santiago RODESNO, Josef Manuel RODRIGUEZ, (Jose) Frutoso RODRIGUEZ, Serapio ROMERO, Leonardo ROMERO, Ygnacio ROQUE, Lucas ROSA, Antonio Tranquilinio de la ROSA, Franco.Cayetano de la ROSA, Josef Leandro de la First 1831 1833 1839 1809 1813 1808 1848 1822 1821 1846 1826 1796 1789 1839 1787 1805 1808 1831 1826 1821 1829 1832 1823 1839 1831 1795 Last 1832 1834 1839 1817 1813 1820 1848 1837 1827 1847 1827 1807 1801 1848 1792 1805 1808 1831 1826 1821 1830 1838 1823 1843 1839 1821 Positions 1831-2: R; 1838: A2 (x serve) 1833-4: R S 1814: R; 1809: S, 1817: A2 R 1814: R; 1817: S; 1808: A2; 1820b: Al R, Alcalde de Campo 1822, 1831, 1836-7: R 1821-27b: R 1846b-1847: R 1827: R; 1826: SI 1798:S; 1796-7,1806: ASH; 1807:MP 1789:A2; 1790, 1801, 1802? A l 1839, 1843-4, 1847-8: R 1787-92: RP; 1787: A l A2 R S2 (x serve?) A2 Al(3) 1829-30: R 1832-3: R, 1834, 1838: MP; 1836: Asesor Cabildo R 1839, 1842-3: R 1831: A l; 1839: Sec 1809-10; 1811-2: RB; 1795: A2; 1801: A2 (renun); 1821: A l (renun) 1782?, 1788: R/AR Al
1782 1789
1788 1789
486
Appendix L: Town Councilors, Tegucigalpa, 1787-1850 (continued) NAME ROSA, Juan Angel ROSA, Leon RUIZ, Eusevio RUIZ, Leandro SALAVARRIA, Juan Judas (Salabarria) Cuesta, Gregorio Alonso Quesada, Ysidoro (Quezada) SAN MARTIN, (Jose) Francisco SAN MARTIN, Josef Domingo SANCHES, Jose Maria SANDOVAL, Bartolo SELVA, Carlos SEVILLA, Ylario SOTO, Bruno SOTO, Juan Jose SOTO, Manuel SOTO, Tomas TAB LA, Juan TRAVIESO, Estevan UGARTE, Damaso UGARTE, Jose Maria UGARTE, Juan Antonio UGARTE, Manuel F irst 1840 1827 1821 1836 1809 1819 1819 1803 1808 1837 1821 1823 1831 1834 1847 1833 1827 1832 1816 1825 1850 1823 1821 L ast 1848 1827 1821 1837 1812 1819 1819 1820 1808 1839 1821 1823 1850 1844 1848 1833 1827 1847 1820 1829 1850 1831 1849 Positions 1840-1; 1842; 1846 (renun) 1848;R 1827a/b: R SI 1836-7: R 1809, 1812; RB; 1811: S; 1812: A2 (to revolt), 1802:A1 (renun) R R 1807-1812; 1815-7: R/Alg May, 1803: S; 1805: ASH S 1837-9: R S2 (x serve?) R 1831-2; 1836-7, 1849: R; 1844: A2; 1850b: Al 1834:R; 1838,1839,1844:A1; 1843: R o Al 1847-8: R R 1827b: Secretario 1832-3 :R;1840:S; 1845:A2; 1847:A1 1817; 1820b: R/ADV; 1816: A2 1825, 1827b, 1829: R; 1826: A S 1823: R; 1831: A l; 1823, 1827a: Sec 1821-2: R; 1825-6: Dep Prop; 1828: A2; 1849: A3
487
Appendix L: Town Councilors, Tegucigalpa, 1787-1850 (continued) NAME URMENETA, (Jose) Benito URMENETA, Mariano (Jose) URMENETA, Ramon VALLE, (Jose) Santos del VALLE, Baltasar VALLE, Pedro VASQUEZ y RIVERA, Manuel Antonio (VAZQUEZ) VASQUEZ, Leon VASQUEZ, Manuel Emigidio VASQUEZ, Yndalicio VEGA, Ygnacio VELES, Toribio VIGIL, Diego VIGIL, Jose (VTJIL) VILLACORTA, Jose Maria VILLAR, Jose Maria XEREDA, Joseph Miguel XIRON, Quintin XIRON, Ygnacio YNESTROSA, Juan Antonio YRIAS, Antonio Jose YRIAS, Felipe YRIAS, Francisco YRIAS, Gabriel de YRIAS, Juan YRIAS, Juan Jose YRIAS, Matias-Carcamo Yrias F irst 1825 1808 Last 1826 1821 Positions R 1813, 1817-8, 1820a: R; 18081812; MP; 1816: S; 1820b: A2; 1821: A l R 1825, 1828: R 1800: A2; 1806: A l R 1792-1812: R; 1792: S; 1794: A2; 1795; A l; 1803: DC 1821: R; 1827b: R?(Vasquez); 1820: Sec 1813-4: R; 1813: Sec R 1834: R; 1826: A l 1839: A l; 1837: MP 1827b: R 1802-3:RS; 1804-1820a:R/AR; 1803: Al 1836, 1840-1: R 1849: R; 1850: A2 S A3 1825-6: S2; 1829: R 1827b: r; 1822: A l S 1844-5: R 1840-2: R 1792: A2; 1793, 1811, 1813, 1814: A l 1846-7:R; 1840,41:A2; 1833: Al 1827a/b: R 1813-4: R; 1809: ASH; 1818: A2
1824 1825 1800 1850 1792
1825 1828 1806 1850 1803 1827 1814 1850 1834 1839 1827 1820 1841 1850 1789 1850 1829 1827 1801 1845 1842 1804 1847 1827 1818
1820 1813 1850 1826 1837 1827 1802 1836 1849 1789 1850 1825 1822 1801 1844 1840 1792 1833 1827 1809
488
Appendix L: Town Councilors, Tegucigalpa, 1787-1850 (continued) NAME YRIAS, Pablo YRIVARREN, Jose ZELAYA, Jose Maria ZELAYA, Joaquin (Juaquin) ZELAYA, Jose Simon de ZELAYA, Pedro Martir de ZEPEDA, Andres (Cepeda) ZEPEDA, Ysidoro ZUNIGA, Antonio (Santos) ZUNIGA, Fermin ZUNIGA, Geronimo ZUNIGA, Jose Maria ZUNIGA, Macedonio (Suniga) ZUNIGA, M ZUNIGA, Matias ZUNIGA, Ramon F irst 1825 1807 1809 1827 1802 1787 1790 1829 1836 1840 1826 1829 1827 1832 1825 1844 L ast 1846 1814 1810 1827 1802 1792 1790 1836 1839 1850 1832 1829 1841 1832 1825 1845 Positions 1825, 1844-6: R 1812:S; 1807:A2; 1811,1814: Al 1809: R/AP; 1810: A2 1827b: R 1802: A2 1787-97: R/DG 1790: A2 1839-30; 1834, 1836: R 1836, 1839: R 1840-1 ;1845-6b;1850:R; 1845:Ts 1826-27b: R; 1831-2: R R 1827b-8: R; 1840-1; Tes. Dpto.; 1832: M. Zuniga, A l Al R R
A- Alcalde (mayor), S-Syndico (syndic), R-Regidor (alderman). See end o f Appendix M for sources and fuller key.
489
Appendix M: Town Councilors, Sonsonate, 1787-1850 cc ANGELES, Bias de los ANGELES, Dionicio ANGELES, Geronimo ANGELES, Mnl de los ANGELES, Ramon de los ANGULO, Nicolas AQUECHE, Eusebio AQUECHE, Francisco AQUECHE, Manuel ARAUZ ? ARAUZ, Cirilo (Sirilo) ARAUZ, Jacinto ARAUZ, Pablo ARAUZ, Sisto ARCE, Pedro ARDON, Gregorio AYARZA, Josef BALCARCEL, Je Maria BARCHARD, Guillermo BARRIENTOS, Gerardo BARRIENTOS, Ygno. BATRES, Leandro BORICA, Pedro BORICA, Ramon de BORICA, Ygnacio BURGOS, Antonio CABRERA, Lorenzo CALDERON DE LA BARCA, Fco CALDERON, Francisco F irst 1826 1837 1842 1814 1831 1830 1818 1818 1819 1823 1837 1820 1848 1834 1832 1835 1782 1792 1830 1839 1820 1843 1833 1798 1831 1776 1823 1779 1836 L ast 1838 1844 1853 1814 1849 1835 1818 1818 1819 1823 1849 1828 1849 1834 1837 1835 1782 1794 1841 1839 1820 1843 1833 1799 1837 1776 1835 1784 1836 Positions 1826-27b, 1828: R; 1838: A o R 1837: S2, 1844: SI 1842: R; 1853: A l R 1833b, 1834, 1849: S; 1831: MP 1830-1, 1835: R A2 S R R 1837: R; 1849? 1820, 1827-8: R 1848-9: R R 1836-7: R; 1832a: dep Fondos A3, Al S 1792: R; 1794: ASH; 1793: A2 1830-1: R; 1840: A l R ASH Ysalco Sec 1833b:R 1798: R; 1799: Dip Cons 1831,1832: S; 1837: A3 S 1827b: R; 1823: SI, 1835: A2 Sec R
490
Appendix M: Town Councilors, Sonsonate, 1787-1850 (continued) NAME CAMPO POMAR, Pedro CAMPO y ARP A, Pedro CAMPO, Rafael CANAL, Felipe de la CANALES, Marcos CARBALLO, Antonio CARDONA, Diego CARMANO, Juan Antonio CARRERA, Manuel CASTANEDA, Julio /Julian CASTELLANOS, Jose Antonio CASTRO, Benancio CEA (sign Zea) CEA, Jose Clemente (Zea) CEA, Jose Maria (ZEA) CEA, Julian (ZEA) CHAPETON, Potenciano CHAVEZ, Anacleto CHOTO, Fermin CHOTO, Fulgencio CHOTO, Simeon CISNEROS, Jose Manuel CONTRERAS, Antonio CONTRERAS, Francisco CONTRERAS, Juan CONTRERAS, Toribio F irst 1832 1811 1833 1829 1842 1781 1832 1811 1775 1832 1808 1844 1823 1825 1821 1822 1848 1823 1831 1830 1844 1844 1776 1797 1829 1837 L ast 1833 1829 1842 1831 1842 1782 1833 1820 1786 1833 1808 1844 1823 1825 1837 1834 1848 1823 1832 1847 1844 1845 1788 1813 1834 1837 Positions 1832a/b-1833a: R 1811-2: RB; 1814, 1820: A l; 1825: Tes Cajas; 1820-1: DCons 1833b, 1836, 1842: R 1829,1831: Sec A2 1781-2: RS 1832a/b: S2; 1833a/b: SI 1811-2:RB; 1815,1818:A2; 1819: A l; 1820: AM disallows eln RB 1775-1784: R/DG; 1786: A l 1832-3: R Sec R A 2,R R 1821-2; 1832-3: R; 1837: A2; 18301; 1834: Dep Prop 1822,1827a/b, 1831, 1833b-4: R Al Al 1831-32a: R 1830: recaudor fondos; 1836-7: S; 1847: Al R 1844: R; 1845: A2 (renuncia) 1776-7: A2; 1781, 1788: A l 1797: Esno juzgado; 1813: Sec 1829: R; 1834: S2 R
491
Appendix M: Town Councilors, Sonsonate, 1787-1850 (continued) NAME CUELLAR, Bernardo CUELLAR, Casimiro Jose de CUELLAR, Francisco CUELLAR, Je Domingo CUELLAR, Serapio CUERNO (y Cuarta), Josef Miguel DELGADO, Miguel DIEZ CLEMENTE, Manuel DUARTE, Atanacio DUARTE, Sebastian DURAN, Mariano ESCALANTE, Fco. ESCALANTE, Jose Maria ESPINOZA, Comelio ESPINOZA, Miguel FARFAN, Jose Tomas FIGUEROA, Norverto NAME GALLARDO, Vicente GARCIA, Casimiro GIL de SEGOVIA, Antonio Angel GOCHE, Marcos GOMEZ, Juan Miguel GOMEZ, Vicente GUEBARA, Francisco (Guevara) GUEVARA Y DONGO, Francisco GUEVARA Y DONGO, Jose Tomas GUEVARA, Toribio F irst 1781 1795 L ast 1781 1817 1837 1811 1820 1784 1808 1791 1835 1842 1810 1846 1837 1788 1814 1814 1848 Last 1835 1829 1779 1848 1820 1836 1819 1787 1806 1853 Positions A2 1795-1817: R /A lfR l (renun.); 1811; A l (serves deposito, 1808-10; 1812, 1814) 1833a, 1837: R MP R S Al 1775-1782; 1778; 1790-1: R/AP; 1784: A l 1829, 1833a, 1835: R A2 ASH R 1826-7b, 1831-32a, 1836-7: R 1787-8: remate R; 1782: A2 R 1795: R/Alg May, 1814: S2 1829,1848:R; 1836: A3 Positions 1832b:R; 1833a:A orR; 1835:S1 1821-2; 1825-6: R; 1829: Al 1777: S; 1779: A l R? 1814, 1820: RB; 1817: A2 1834: A3; 1836: A l 1808: RB; 1817: S; 1819: A2 1775-1787: R/AR; 1777,1782: A l 1797: R; 1792: A2DV; 1794: A2; 1803,1805: A 1 S2
1833 1811 1820 1783 1808 1775 1829 1842 1810 1846 1826 1782 1814 1795 1829 First 1832 1821 1777 1848 1814 1834 1808 1775 1792 1853
492
Appendix M: Town Councilors, Sonsonate, 1787-1850 (continued) NAME GUTIERREZ, Je Anto. GUTIERREZ, Juan Santos HERAS, Miguel HERRERA, Antonio HERRERA, Francisco HERRERA, Marcelo HIDALGO RODRIGUEZ, Thelesforo HUESO, Carlos (HUEZO) HUESO, Guillermo HUEZO, Vicente LAMA, Manuel LARIN, Juan Bautista LARRABE, Cirilo (Larrave) LECHUGA, Ramon LEMUS, Manuel MACHADO, Francisco MADRID, Satumino MARIONA, Ramon MARTINEZ Baqueriso, Ysidoro MARTINEZ, Jose MARTINEZ, MARTINEZ, MARTINEZ, MARTINEZ, Mariano Patricio Santos Serapio F irst 1827 1814 1845 1811 1853 1811 1797 L ast 1827 1835 1849 1812 1853 1820 1797 Positions 1827b: R 1832a: R; 1814, 1822, 1834: A2; 1817, 1825: A l 1845, 1849: A l 1812: ASH; 1812: A2 Ysalco R 1811-2: ASH Ysalco; 1820: ASH Apaneca A2
1829 1846 1835 1817 1845 1841 1813 1836 1848 1840 1842 1813 1834 1821 1812 1848 1819 1819
1835 1846 1835 1819 1845 1843 1816 1836 1848 1841 1842 1818 1849 1822 1820 1853 1826 1827
1829: 1829-30, 1833a, 1835: R R Al 1817-9: M P A2 1841-3: R 1813: R; 1815-6: S R R 1840-1: R R 1813-4; 1817-18: R 1834: R(elegido); 1834, 1839: Sec; 1835: recaud fondos 1821-2; R 1818-20: R; 1812: S 1853; R; 1848: R? 1819: Alcayde; 1820: Portero: 1826: A2 1822: R; 1819: S; 1827a: Al (abandon)
MAZA, Manuel
493
Appendix M: Town Councilors, Sonsonate, 1787-1850 (continued) NAM E MENCIA (Spelled Mencilla) MENCIA, Andres, Capt. MENCIA, Dionicio (Jose) MENCIA, Francisco MENCIA, Manuel A. MENCIA, Manuel Antonio MENCIA, Maximo MENCIA, Miguel F irst 1823 1805 1813 1778 1833 1832 1820 1807 L ast 1823 1820 1822 1778 1845 1833 1832 1832 Positions R 1809-11; 1815-6: RB; 1812 A2; 1805,1820: Al 1813; 1817-8: RB; 1814: Rceptor; 1822: Al S 1833b: A2; 1845; A l 1832a/b-1833a/b: R 1831-2a:R; 1820: MP; 1829: Sec 1807-8,1813,1815, 1820: RB; 1809,1811, 1832a:S; 1816:A2; 1827:Dep 1789-90; 1792:R; 1790:A2 MP 1829, 1831: SI; 1830: S2 1841: S2; 1843: SI R 1827a/b: R 1841, 1844, 1846, 1848-9: Sec 1832b, 1836-7:R; 1844:S2 (x srv); 1849: A2 R 1820, 1823, 1825, 1832b: R; 1827b: A2; 1833, 1838: A l 1779: S; 1780: A2 A2 1823: R; 1833: A3 1834, 1835: Al
MENDEZ, Antonio (Josef) MENDEZ, Ygnacio MENDEZ, Jose Francisco MENDEZ, Jose V MENDOZA, Jose MENS LA, Mariano (mencia) MONJE, D(ionicio) MORA, Fernando MORALES, Dionisio MOXICA, Manuel (Mogica) MOYA Y LECHUGA, Fco. MUNOS, Pedro MURILLO, Rafael (Morillo) OLIVARES, Tomas
1789 1810 1829 1841 1829 1827 1841 1832 1853 1820 1779 1846 1823 1834
1792 1810 1831 1843 1829 1827 1849 1849 1853 1838 1780 1846 1833 1835
494
Appendix M: Town Councilors, Sonsonate, 1787-1850 (continued) NAME ORANTES VISCARRA, Tomas (ORANTES) OSORIO, Gregorio OSORIO, Rosalio OYA, Josef Paulino de OYARZUM, Juan Antonio Fernandez PADILLA, Jose PAD IN, Simon PANIAGUA, Bonifacio PAREDES, Juan PAREDES, Manuel PENATE, Jose Maria PEREZ YBARRETA, Millan POMAR Y TORRE, Juan Antonio POMAR, Jose Maria POMAR, Lucas de PORTILLA, Buenaventura PRIETO, Marcelino QUEJADA, Jose QUEVEDO, Jose Maria RAMOS, Jose Antonio RASCON, Eugenio RASCON, Fco. Ygnacio RASCON, Vicente REVELO, Jose Manuel RIBAS, Anacleto RIBAS, Cesario (Rivas) RIBAS, Enrique (Rivas) F irst 1823 L ast 1842 Positions 1823,1834:R; 1830: A2; 1824,1833b, 1 842:A1 1822: R; 1827a/b: A2 A2 R/AlgM A2(l) 1835-6: R; 1821: A l R/A2DV Sec R 1820-1; 1833a: R R 1792; A2 1781: S; 1790-1; A l 1808-9; 1816-7: RB; 1820: SI 1822, 1837: R; 1818, 1836:A1 (renun 1836) 1837: R; 1832b, 1835-6: Sec 1825,1827b: Sec A2 R 1822, 1828-30, 1844-5: R; 1849: Al 1808, 1810, 1812, 1814-20: RP; 1809, 1817: A l; 1818: RC Al 1819, 1826-27a: R 1827a/b: S2 S2 1834: R; 1835: A3 1829-30: R
1822 1853 1798 1820 1821 1793 1824 1835 1820 1853 1792 1781 1808 1818 1832 1825 1843 1826 1822 1808 1834 1819 1827 1820 1834 1829
1827 1853 1798 1820 1836 1793 1824 1835 1833 1853 1794 1791 1820 1837 1837 1827 1843 1826 1849 1820 1834 1827 1827 1820 1835 1830
495
Appendix M: Town Councilors, Sonsonate, 1787-1850 (continued) NAME RIBAS, Francisco (Rivas) RIBAS, Rafael (Rivas) RIVAS, Ylario RIVERA, Manuel ROCHAC, Yanuario RODRIGUES, Eduvijes RODRIGUES, Estanislao RODRIGUEZ, E RODRIGUEZ, Francisco RODRIGUEZ, Juan Elisio RODRIGUEZ, Marciano RODRIGUEZ, Rafael RODRIGUEZ, Vicente ROMERO, Manuel Ermerengildo RUBIO, Miguel SAAVEDRA, Christoval Jose de SAAVEDRA, Mariano SALABERRIA, Fco. (Salaverria, Salavarria) SALAVERRIA, Dionicio SALDIVAR, Juan SALDIVAR Nicolas SALGUERO, Domingo SALGUERO, Patrocinio SANTA CRUZ, Pedro de SAVE, Luis Bertrand F irst 1814 1821 1823 1839 1841 1844 1834 1848 1823 1840 1827 1813 1835 1809 1814 1794 1818 1830 1778 1844 1843 1853 1841 1789 1835 L ast 1827 1821 1824 1839 1842 1849 1834 1848 1853 1843 1832 1821 1836 1821 1814 1809 1819 1834 1799 1844 1843 1853 1853 1796 1844 Positions 1814,1821-2,1827b: R S2 1823: A l Ysalco; 1824; Al R 1841-2: R 1844: R; 1849: A3 R Ror? 1823, 826,1829: R; 1825,1828:S; 1853: Sec 1840, 1843: R 1828: A2; 1827b, 1837, 1832a/b: Al 1820b:R;1813: S; 1821:A2;1817:A1 1835-6: R 1813, 1821 :R; 1809: MP; 1819:ASH Ysalco R 1794-5 (A2DV); 1801-2 (AP); 1809 (ausente); 1797: A l 1818-9: R 1830-1, 1833b-4: R 1778,1783,1784,1793,1799:R/A2 Sec interino R R 1842, 1853: R; 1841, 1848: A2 1789: A2; 1795-6: A l 1835: S2; 1836, 1841, 1844: A l
496
Appendix M: Town Councilors, Sonsonate, 1787*1850 (continued) NAME SICILIA y MONTOYA, Jose Antonio SICILIA, Sebastian SIERRA, Jose Maria SIGUENZA, Sebastian SIGUENZA, Sotero SIGUENZA, Timoteo SOSA, Fernando SOSA, Joaquin (Juaquin) SOSA, Ysidro SUNZIN, Mariano TRIGUEROS, Jose Dolores TRIGUEROS, Manuel TRIGUEROS, Nazario TRIGUEROS, Santiago TRIGUEROS, Vctriano UGALDE, Pedro Igno. UTRERA, Tomas VARGAS, Miguel VEGA, Eduardo VEGA, Felipe VEGA, Jose VEGA, Luciano VEGA, Vicente VELADO, Agustin VELADO, Eusebio VELASQUEZ, Francisco Mateo VELASQUEZ, Juan VILLA, Pedro F irst 1775 1830 1826 1796 1829 1825 1835 1808 1833 1776 1826 1798 1840 1842 1837 1805 1846 1849 1820 1822 1826 1827 1826 1833 1826 1798 1802 1813 L ast 1784 1834 1826 1812 1832 1831 1836 1821 1834 1791 1827 1798 1844 1846 1837 1814 1846 1849 1832 1832 1826 1853 1835 1846 1826 1798 1802 1813 Positions 1776-1784: RS; 1775-6: A l 1830, 1834: R; 1831: A l S2 1796: ASH; 1812: A2 Ysalco 1829-30: S; 1832a: Dep Fondos 1825, 1831: A2 1835-6: R 1809-11,1813,1815-6: RB; 1820b,1821: SI; 1808,1814: A2; 1817: Al 1834: R; 1833a: S2 1776-8: R/Alg May; 1791; R/ADV 1826:S2; 1827a/b:Sl R 1840, 1844: R 1842,1846:R R 1813-4; S; 1805: A2 R R 1820b: A2; 1826: A l; 1831,32b:Sec 1826-7a; 1831,1836:R; 1822: Sec Sec 1827b, 1833b, 1853 :R; 1828,30:A1 1827a: R; 1835: A2, A l; 1826, 1833a/b-1834: Sec 1833a, 1836: R; 1846: A 1 R A2 A2 R
497
Appendix M: Town Councilors, Sonsonate, 1787-1850 (continued) NAME VILLA VICENCIO, Jacinto de VILLAVICENCIO, Jose Jacinto VILLAVICENCIO, Mnl VILLA VICENCIO, Nicolas VILLA VICENCIO, Onorato VILLA VICENCIO, Pdr WAND IN, Jose Mariano WANDIN, Luis Mrno. XIBAJA, Jose XIBAJA, Manuel XEMENEZ DE SISNEROS, Tomas XIMENEZ, Jose YMENDIA, Jose YMENDIA, Jose Maria YPINA, Manuel de YPINA, Mariano Lopez YPINA, Rafael de ZAPATA, Jose Maria ZUNIGA, Bartolome F irst 1788 L ast 1820 Positions 1788-1820a/b( 1809-11):RP; 1788 179LA2; 1801-02, 1807-8,1810, 1812,1814,1815: Al 1820a, 1825-6, 1831: R; 1832a/b: A2 A2 1833: Sec; 1853: SI 1824, 1835: R; 1823, 1832b: S2; 1833a: S I; 1829: A2 1842: R; 1848: R or A Sec A2 R 1835: R; 1844; S; 1848: R o r ? 1780-2: S; 1795:? Compra RP 1813: R; 1810: S A2 Al 1810,1812:RB; 1809:A2; 1816:A1 1799: A l; 1800: AM interino 1788-1800: Remate R; 1775; S; 1786: A2; 1792, 1793, 1800: Al 1810, 1811, 1813: A2 Al
1820 1775 1833 1823 1842 1826 1795 1841 1835 1780 1810 1843 1837 1809 1799 1775 1810 1813
1832 1775 1853 1835 1848 1826 1795 1841 1848 1795 1813 1843 1837 1816 1800 1800 1813 1813
KEY: A 1-Alcalde de Primer Voto; A2-Alcalde de Segundo Voto; ADV-a regidor who is termporarily replacing a mayor (alcalde deposito de vara); S-Syndic, R-Regidor, RBRegidor Bienal; RP -Regidor Perpetuo, Sec-Secretary, DP -Depositario General; Alg May - Regidor/Alguacil Mayor; ASH -Alcalde de la Sta. Hermandad; Alcayde - Jailer; Portero-Concierge Compra- Purchase of office; Remate-Auction/sale of office; x serve -not take office or remain in it; Renun-resigns office Year a/b: Year in which there was a change of municipal government. The officeholder either served in the first (a) or second (b) period or both (a/b).
498
Appendices K-M
Principal Sources: G uatem ala:
Libras de Cabildo, 1787-1850, AGCA A.l.2.3 Legajos 2185-2194; B78.1 Leg. 532, Exp. 10107 to Leg. 536, Exp. 10157. Actas de Election, AGCA Al .2.3 Legajo 224, Legajo 44 Expediente 1136,1111 Titles, AGI, Guatemala 629, 426
Tegucigalpa:
Archivo Municipal de Tegucigalpa (Tegucigalpa): Libras de Actas Municipales, 1801-1832 (includes Libra de Elecciones, 1801-1809; Actas 1826, 1827, 1829, 1830, 1831), Libras de Actas Municipales, 1834-1850 (includes 1834, 1836, 1839-1843, 1845-1850). Archivo Nacional de Honduras (Tegucigalpa), Actas, 1813, Fondo Colonial, Caja 112, #3583 ; Remate, Regidores de Tegucigalpa, 1792, Fondo Colonial, Caja 88, No 2926, 2932. Sonsonate: Archivo Municipal de Sonsonate (Sosnonate): Libras de Cabildo, various years between 17841850, Various Cajas, Seccion Antigua, 1780-1789; Seccion Antigua, 1790-1799; Libra de Elecciones, 1809-1820, Caja 3, Seccion Antigua, 1800-1809; Libra de Elecciones, 18211829, Caja Elecciones, 1821-1839; Caja Actas Municipales, 1821-1829; Cajas 1-3, Municipalidad, 1840-1849 Archivo General de la Nation (San Salvador): Seccion Colonial, Caja 1, Carpeta 2, Libra de Actas, 1811-1814 These sources provided the basic information on the men who held office in the cabildos of Guatemala, Sonsonate and Tegucigalpa between 1776-1850. Some of the matronymics come from additional research in other sources, including notarials and congressional documents.
499
Appendix N: Mayors and Syndics, Santiago and Asuncion de Guatemala, 1700-1800 Year 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 Alcalde de 1 Voto Juan Lucas Urtante, R Juan de Langarica Josef Lara Mogrovejo Josef Calvo de Lara Manuel Medrano Sebastian de Loaisa Tomas de Arrivillaga Juan Antonio Ruiz de Bustamante Josef Bernardo Mencos Sebastian de Loaiza Juan Lucas Urtarte Bentura Beteta Fdo de la Tovilla Diego Rodriguez Menendez Bartolome de Galvez Josef Alvares Asturias y Navas Miguel de Montufar Bernardo Mencos Sebastian de Loaisa Miguel German F. de Cordova Pedro Carrillo Mencos A/E Alcalde de 2* Voto Lucas de Larrave E A Manuel Medrano Juan Igno de Urias Josef de Naxera A E A E A E E E A A E A E A A Sebastian de Loaisa A/E Slndico E Juan Ignacio de Uria A E A E Josef LovoXiron Antonio de Herrarte A/E E E
Juan Ygnacio de Uria E Francisco Fuentes y A Guzman Francisco de Montufar A Josef Lovo Giron Antonio de Herrarte Antonio Sepien Juan Igno de Urias Lie Josef Davalos Lie Josef Davalos Francisco Marcelino Falla Antonio de Olaverrieta Manuel de Zevallos Domingo de Retana Juan Calderon de la Barca Josef Samayoa Jedro de la Barrera Juan Arochena E A A E E E E A 1 A E E E
Josef de la Tovilla y A Galves Ventura Arroyave y E Beteta Juan Asepitia A Miguel Montufar Bernardo Cabrejo E A
Domingo Oyarza Juan Antonio Varon A Francisco X. de A Folgar Pedro de Yturvide E Miguel Fernandez Cordova Vfanuel de Zevallos A E
Miguel Eustaquio A Urias E Juan de Ruballo Juan Gonzales Batres A Juan Flores Duran Josef Galvez Corrado A
oiis Anto Mufios
Alcalde de Primer Voto-First Mayor; -Alcalde de 2 Voto-Second Mayor; Sindico-Syndic A - Americano (Creole), E- Espanol (Peninsular, Spaniard)
500
Appendix N: Mayors and Syndics, Santiago and Asuncion de Guatemala, 1700-1800 (cont) Year 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 Alcalde lo A/E Josef A. delas A Aturias Juan de Berraneche E Miguel de Urias A Bentura de E Arollave y Beteta Josef A. de las A Asturias Juan de Ruballo E Lucas Carlos Coronado Juan Barraneche Bernardo Cabrejo Juan Angel de Arochena Josef de las Asturias N. Guillermo Martinez de Pereda Josef A. las de Asturias Manuel Munoz Juan Gonzalez Batres Domingo de olavarrieta Pedro Carillo Bentura Beteta Pedro Ortz de Letona A E A A E A E A E A E A Alcalde 2o A/E Sindico Anto de Olaverrieta E Manuel de Lexarza Palacios Antonio De Zepeda A Juan Calderon Domingo retana E Juan Colomo Manuel Josef de A Juan Antonio Colomo estrada Juan de Zavala E Juan Antonio Colomo Diego Gonzalez A Batres Francisco de Dios E Sobrado Juan Antonio A Diguero Juan Angel Arochena E Juan Calderon de la A Barca Pedro Landivar E Cristoval de Galves Juan Francisco del Real Pedro Juan Carrillo Josef Samoyoa Josef de Naxera A E A E A A/E E A A A A
Guillermo Martinez de E Pereda Antonio de la Campa A Antonio de la Campa Agustin Arrivillaga Francisco de Herrarte Tomas Garcia Bamonde Juan de Pezonarte A A E E
Juan Pezonarte, E reelected Tomas Garcia E Bamonde Anto de la Campa Cos A Tomas Carrera E
Gaspar Juarros E Josef de Olaverrieta Bartol de Eguizabal E
Francisco Portillo A Josef Molina Sandoval H Francisco Anto de la Granda
501
Appendix N: Mayors and Syndics, Santiago and Asuncion de Guatemala, 1700-1800 (cont) Year 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 Alcalde lo A/E Alcalde 2o Guillermo E Francisco Herrarte Martinez de Pereda Anto Zepeda A Juan de Abaurrea Manuel Munoz E Francisco Portillo Juan Gonzalez A,A Francisco Anto Batres R Granda Juan Martin Munoz E Josef de Arrivillaga Pedro Ortiz de A, Francisco de Letona R Chavarria Bartolome E Joaquin Montufar Eguisabal Josef Naxera A, Basilio Roma R Gaspar Juarros E Diego Arroyave Beteta Miguel de A, Felipe Manrrique Coronado R Blank Josef de Arrivillaga A Agustin de Olaverri Manuel Munoz E Pedro Loaisa Manuel de Galvez A Manuel de Mella Francisco Barrutia E Manuel de Larrave Pedro Letona A, Josef Gonzales R Robles Basilio Roma E, Pedro Cabrejo R Juaquin de A, Salvador Cavarer Montufar R Francisco Barrutia E Vfiguel Asturias Manuel Larrave A A/E Isiadico A Toms Carrera E A E, R A E A E A E, R E E E A E A E A A/E E
A Miguel de Coronado Basilio Roma R, E Dr Francisco Vidaurre A Josef Rosa Pedro Cabrejo Agustin de Olaverri Joef Estrada Josef Torresillas Manuel de Larrave Josef Gonzalez Robles Manuel de Mella Francisco Yturregui Francisco Yturregui Juan Josef Ganuza Francisco Yturregui Lorenzo Garcia Juan Fermin de Ayzinena Manuel Batres E A E E E E E E E A E A
J. Fermin de E A Azyinena 1760 Agustin Olaverri E Vfanuel Batres A Femado Palomo E 1761 Manuel Batres A Francisco Palomo Cayetano Pabon E 1762 Gaspar Juarros E Simon de Larrazabal A Juan Barrutia E 1763 Cristoval de Galves A Cayetano Pavon Ignacio Zepeda R Alcalde de Primer Voto-First Mayor; -Alcalde de 2 Voto-Second Mayor; SindicoSyndic; A - Americano (Creole), E- Espafiol (Peninsular), R-Regidor (Alderman)
502
Appendix N: Mayors and Syndics, Santiago and Asuncidn de Guatemala, 1700-1800 (conL) Year 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 Alcalde lo Josef Gonzales Robles Josef Gonzales Robles Simon de Larrazabal Manuel de Mella Manuel de Larrave Manuel Llano Pedro Cabrejo Juan Tomas Micheo Bentura Naxera Felipe Rubi Miguel Asturias Fco. Chamorro Josef Gonzales Robles Miguel Asturias Felipe Rubio Francisco Ig. Chamorro Manuel Juarros A/E Isindico A/E Alcalde 2o E Juaquin de Lacunza A Tomas Dighero E A, R E A E A E, R A, R E A E, R E A E E, R A, R A E Juaquin de Lacunza A Juan Tomas Micheo E Ventura Naxera Felipe Rubio Josef Batres Benito Carrera Mariano Arrivillaga Francisco Ignacio Chamorro Miguel Eguizabal Juan Pinol Andres Munoz Manuel Juarros A, R E A A A E A E A A Juan Jose Ganuza Josef Batres Nicolas de Letona Cayetano Pavon Manuel Juarros Mariano Arrivillaga Miguel de Eguizabal Ignacio Mufioz Mariano Galvez Fernando del Sobral Diego del Barco IA/E E A A R A A A A A E
Juan Antonio de la Pena E Diego Peinado Both resigned. E
Juan Anto. Pefia E Ygnacio Munoz A Pedro Josef Micheo E Francisco Pacheco Gregorio Urruela Vfariano Roma Lorenzo Montufar
E, R Martin Valdez E, R Lorenzo Montufar A Josef Fernandez Gil A Ambrosio Taboada Juan Gil del Barrio Domingo Arido Juan Pedro Oyarzaval
E A E E E E E
Josef Batres Juan Ant. de la Pena Matias Manzanares E, R Lorenzo Montufar A, J. Fermin de E Ayzinena, Marquis Mariano A Arrivillaga
Jedro Beltranena E Col. Juan Manrrique A *edro Ayzinena
503
Appendix N: Mayors and Syndics, Santiago and Asunci6n de Guatemala, 1700-1800 (cont.) Y ear 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 Alcalde lo Matias de Manzanares Manuel Juarros Josef Ant. Castafiedo Cayetano Pavon Ambrosio Gomara Josef Mariano Roma Francisco Pacheco A/E Alcalde 2o E Cristoval Silverio de Galvez A Josef Ant. Castanedo E Cayetano Pavon E Ambrosio Gomora E Tadeo Pinol A Josef Fernandez Gil E Luis Barrutia A/E A E A E A E A Sfndico Domingo Ubico A/E E
Martin Barrundia E Lorenzo Ximenz Rubio E Mariano Naxera A Pedor Juan de Lara E Juan Josef Barrutia A Juan Baptista E Marticorena Bentura Naxera A, R Pedro Juan de Lara E Dr Josef Ayzinena A Ambrosio Gomora E Vizente de Ayzinena A Juan Angel de Yturrios E Col Juan Manrrique A Francisco X. Aguirre E Josef Garcia Goyena E Lie Cristoval Aviles E Manuel Pavon A, R Basilio Barrutia E Cristoval Galvez A Juan Baptista E Basilio Barrutia E Marticorena Cayetano Pavon A Martin Valdez E Pedro Arrivillaga A Martin Valdez E Miguel Igno. A, R Antonio Texada E Asturias Josef Mariano A Ambrosio Taboada E Francisco Pacheco y A Arrivillaga Beteta
Alcalde de Primer Voto-First Mayor; Alcalde de 2 Voto-Second Mayor; Sindico-Syndic A - Americano (Creole), E- Espafiol (Peninsular), R - Regidor Source: AHN, Consejos 20983, Pieza 2, ff. 273v-284.
504
Appendix O: Regidores Bienales, Guatemala City, 1784-1792 Name Juarros, Manuel Jose Batres, Josef Manzanares, Matias Roma, Mariano Manrrique, Juan Galvez, Cristobal de Camino, Andres del Gomara, Ambrosio Rubio y Gemmir, Juan Miguel Arrido, Domingo Arrivillaga, Mariano Roma, Mariano * Aycinena, Pedro Fernandez Gil, Jose Gomara, Ambrocio San Juan, Josef Miguel Arrido, Domingo Oyarzabal, Juan Pedro * Asturias y Beteta, Miguel * Aycinena, Vicente * Barrundia, Martin Years A/E Name 1784-5 A Pacheco, Francisco 1784-5 A Urruela, Gregorio 1784-5 E Beltranena, Pedro 1784-5 A Oliver, Juan 1784-5 A * Castafiedo, Josef Ant. 1784-5 A Yrungarai, Mateo 1784-5 (E) Pifiol, Tadeo 1784-5 E Pavon, Cayetano 1784-5 A Lazalde, Manuel de 1784-5 E Rivas, Josef Joaquin * Barrutia, Luis Juarros, Manuel Jose Martinez Pacheco, Fco. Urruela, Gregorio Galvez, Cristobal Coronado, Ygnacio Barco, Diego del * Ferrer, Rafael Ariza, Pedro Cambronero, Luis Years A/E 1786-7 E 1786-7 E 1786-7 E 1786-7 E 1786-7 E 1786-7 (E) 1786-7 A 1786-7 E 1786-7 1786-7 A 1786-7 A 1790-1 A 1790-1 E 1790 E 1790-1 A 1790-1 A 1790-1 E 1790-1 1790-1 1790-1 1790-1 1790-1 1791 E E E A A E
1788 A 1788-9 A 1788-9 E 1788-9 E 1788-9 E 1788-9 (A) 1788-9 1788-9 1788-9 1788-9 1789 E E A A E
Batres y Mufioz, Vntra * Pavon, Manuel Lara, Pedro Juan de (replaces Urruela) A = Americano (Creole), E = Europeo (Spaniard), 0 - Attributed
* = Purchases a permanent seat in 1793. (Repetitions). Source: AGI Guatemala 446. Nicolas Obregon was the only permanent regidor in this period . He had purchased his seat in 1772.
505
Appendix O: Regidores Bienales, Guatemala City, 1784-1792 (cont.) * Aycinena, Pedro * Castanedo, Josef Antonio Manrrique, Juan Taboada, Ambrosio Oyarzabal, Pedro * Bammdia, Martin * Asturias, Miguel de Payes, Juan Croquer, Julian * Batres, Jose Antonio Aycinena, Jose A = Americano (Creole), 1792-3 1792-3 1792-3 1792-3 1792-3 1792-3 1792-3 1792-3 1792-3 1792-3 E E A E E E A (E) A A 10 o f 11 1793 Purchasers: Aycinena, Pedro Aycinena, Vicente Miguel Asturias Beteta B am m dia,Martin Luis Barrutia Castafiedo, Josef Ant. Batres, Jose Antonio Ferrer, Rafael Lara, Pedro J. Manuel Jose Pavon 1 l m seat o f 1793 to:
E A A E A E A E E A
1792 A Jose Maria Peynado E = Europeo (Spaniard), 0 - Attributed
* = Purchases a permanent seat in 1793. (Repetitions). Source: AGI Guatemala 446. Nicolas Obregon was the only permanent regidor in this period . He had purchased his seat in 1772. Sources on place of origin: See prrincipally AHN (Madrid) Consejos 20983, Piezas 2, 8 and 10, or AGCA A1.2 Legajo 43, Expediente 1082.
506
Appendix P: Mayors, Asuncidn de Guatemala, 1776-1820 Y ear 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 Alcalde 1 Gonzalez Roves,Jose Asturias, Miguel Chamorro, Francisco Ignacio Juarros, Manuel Batres, Jose Pena, Juan Antonio de la Manzanares, Matias Montufar, Lorrenzo Aycinena, Juan Fermin Arrivillaga, Mariano Manzanares, Matias Juarros, Manuel Josef Castanedo, Josef Antonio Pavon, Cayetano Josef Gomara, Ambrosio Roma y Asturias, Jose Mno Martinez Pacheco, Francisco Naxera, Ventura Gomara, Ambrosio Manrrique Guzman, Juan Ortiz Aviles, Xristobal Galvez, Cristobal Silverio Pavon, Cayetano Valdes, Martin de Roma, Josef Mariano Marticorena, Juan Bta. E/A E? A A A A E E A E A E A E A E A E A E A E A A E A E Alcalde 2o Juarros,Manuel Jose Pefia, Juan Anto de la Micheo, Pedro Jose Pacheco, Francisco Urruela, Gregorio Roma, Mariano Montufar, Lorenzo Beltranena, Pedro Manrique, Col. Juan Aycinena, Pedro Galvez, Xristobal Castanedo, Josef Antonio Pavon, Cayetano Josef Gomara, Ambrosio Pifiol y Mufioz, Tadeo Fernandez Gil, Jose Barrutia y Roma, Luis Fco. Lara, Pedro Juan de Aycinena y Carrillo, Vicnte Aguirre, Francisco Xavier Pavon, Manuel (regidor) Marticorena, Juan Bta Valdes, Martin de Alvarez Asturias, Mig Igno. Rodriguez Taboada, Ambrocio Palomo, Antonio Isidro E/A A E E E E A A E A E A E A E A E A E A E A E E A E A
507
Appendix P: Mayors, Asuncidn de Guatemala, 1776-1820 (con t) Y ear 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1812 1813 1814 1814 1814 1815 1816 1816 1817 1818 1819 1819 1820 Alcalde 1 Rubio y Gemmir, J. Miguel Ortiz de Avila, Xristobal Roma, Jose Mariano Marticorena, J Bta Pinol y Munoz, Tadeo Aycinena Larrayn, Pedro J Juarros, Antonio Urruela, Gregorio de Barrutia, B./ Pavon, C (2) Moreno, Lorenzo Peyando, Jose Maria (1) Barrio, Jose (2) Melon, Sebastian Perez Brito, Francisco (1) Aqueche, Juan Antonio (2) Juarros, Antonio (3) Ysasi, Jose Pavon, Domingo Jose Pavon, Domingo Jose Ramirez, Ramon Asturias, Juan Nepo Urruela, Jose Urruela, Jose Pavon, Vicente E/A A E A E A A A E A E A E E ? E A E A A E? A E? E? A Alcalde 2o Ariza, Pedro Aycinena, Jose, Dr Taboada, Juan Francisco Barrutia, Bacilio Gorris, Pedro Jose de Batres y Munoz, Je Anto Ysasi, Jose Arrivillaga y Coronado,Pedro J Moreno, Lorenzo Pavon, Domingo Jose Barrio, Jose Roma, Jose (2) Salmon, Francisco Azeituno, Jose Juqn (1) Galvez, Mariano Jose (2) Ysasi, Jose (3) Lara y Areze, Manuel Jose Araujo, Juan Anto (1) Salmon, Francisco (2) Pavon, Vicente Echeverria, Juan Jose Asturias, Miguel (resign)** Batres Asturias, Antonio Aqueche, Juan Antonio E/A E A E A E A E A E A E A E ? A E A E E A E? A A E
** Replaced by Diego Barco, E. A-Americano (Creole); E-Espaflol (Spaniard); ? -origin assumed because o f altemativa (alternation between Creole and Spanish mayors) Sources: AHN Consejos 20983; Juarros, Compendio de la Historia, pp. 193-199.
508
Appendix Q: Deputies to Suprema Junta Central, Spanish Cortes & Diputaciones Provinciales, Kingdom of Guatemala, 1813-1820 Suprema Junta Central Cabildo Selections City Selected Vecindad Action Guatemala, San Salvador, Quezaltenango, Ciudad Real: Jose Aycinena Guatemala RESIGNS Comayagua, Tegucigalpa, San Vicente, Choluteca/Tegucigalpa: Jose Cecilio del Valle Tegucigalpa/Guate. Sonsonate Alejandro Ramirez Espafio1 RESIGNS Cart ago Manuel Jose Pavon Guatemala San Miguel Miguel Barroeta Santa Ana Domingo Figueroa Granada Pedro Chamorro Nicaragua Juan Jose Villar Nueva Segovia Juan Fco. Vilchez y Cabrera (ecles) Replacing the resignees: Antonio Juarros (Guatemala), Manuel Jose Pavon (Guatemala), Manuel Antonio Molina, Jose Maria de la Torre, Isidro Sicilia (Sonsonate), Francisco Ayerdi (Leon), Jose Maria Ramon (city o f origin, if known) ELECTED: Manuel Jose Pavon Cortes de C idiz - Extraordinaria (1810-1812) INTERIM deputies, resident in Spain, acting until the arrival of the elected representatives: Andres and Manuel Llano (resident in Cadiz) ELECTED deputies Guatemala City Ecc. Ciudad Real (C) Leon (N) Comayagua (H) Cartago (CR) San Salvador (ES) Antonio Larrazabal Mariano Robles D. Jose Antonio Lopez de la Plata Francisco Morejon Florencio Castillo Jose Ignacio Avila Priest Priest Priest Bachiller Priest Lawyer
Dr, Member Soc Ec, Cab. Canonigo, Ciudad Real Dr, Leon, Soc Ec Comayagua, Soc Ec. Cartago San Salvador, Soc Ec
509
Appendix Q: Deputies to Suprema Junta Central, Spanish Cortes & Diputaciones Provinciales, Kingdom o f Guatemala, 1813-1820 (continued) Cortes Ordinarias (1813-1814) Propietary Guatemala City Quezaltenango (G) Chimaltenango (G) Verapaz (G) Solola & Chimaltenango (G) Chiquimula (G) Aud, Chiquimula (G) election Sonsonate San Salvador (ES) San Miguel (ES) Chiapas (C) Ciudad Real (C) election Comayagua (H) Tegucigalpa (H) Leon (N) Nicaragua Costa Rica Suplentes Guatemala City El Salvador Costa Rica Honduras Chiapas Sonsonate Guate. Comayagua Leon Jose Maria Peynado Landowner Not go; reg.; Soc Ec Intendant, El Sal. Not go Not go; reg., Leon Not go; reg. & syndic Guatemala Not go; Consulado, Junta de Censura Not go; 1814
Priest Jose Cleto Montiel Manuel Micheo Agustin Gutierrez Lizaurzaval Lawyer Lawyer & Francisco Barrutia Merchant Luis Pedro Aguirre Lawyer Luis Hermosilla Serapio Contreras Manuel Arce Miguel Larreynaga Dr. Miguel Barroeta Fernando Antonio Davila Juan Nepomuceno Fuero Jose Santiago Milla Jose Santiago Milla Pedro Solis Miguel Larreynaga Rafael Barroeta Priest Antonio Larrazabal Jose Ignacio Avila Florencio Castillo Priest Jose Francisco Morejon Mariano Robles Dominguez Lawyer/M. Mariano Beltranena Nicolas Anacleta Parrilla Alejandro Diaz Cabeza de Vaca Priest Lawyer Priest Priest
Not go (Per Gazeta de Guatemala) Lawyer Not go Priest Not go Priest Not go, 1814 Lawyer Lawyer Priest Lawyer Comayagua Comayagua Not go Not go, Col Abg, Aud. res. Guatemala Not go Already in Spain Already in Spain Already in Spain Already in Spain Already in Spain Not go, regidor Not go Not go, Leon, res. Gu. regidor & syndic
510
Appendix Q: Deputies to Suprema Junta Central, Spanish Cortes & Diputaciones Provinciales, Kingdom of Guatemala, 1813-1820 (continued) Cortes Ordinarias (1820) Luis Hermosilla Priest Soc Ec Juan de Dios Mayorga Guatemala City Julian de Urruela Merchant regidor, Cons. Comercio Manuel Guerra Marchan* Priest Dean o f Tortosa; res Spain Chimaltenango (G) Manuel Guerra Marchan Quezaltenango (G) Jose Leon Marroquin Priest Mariano Cordova Guatemala City Verapaz (G) Francisco Garcia Priest resident, Guatemala City Antonio Rivera Lawyer resigns Sacatepequez (G) Mateo Ybarra Merchant resident, Guatemala City Sonsonate, Escuintla Mariano Mendez resident, Madrid & Suchitepequez Ciudad Real (C) Fernando Antonio Davila Priest Tiburcio Farrera * Comayagua (H) Juan Esteban Milla Lawyer Comayagua, Col Abg, Soc Ec Comayagua (H) Dionicio Herrera* Lawyer Tegucigalpa, sec. cabildo San Salvador (ES) Jose Maria Alvarez+ Priest Dr, Soc Ec, univ professor+ Mariano Gomez* Lawyer San Miguel (ES) Jose Matias Delgado Priest Dr, Soc Ec Leon (N) Toribio Argiiello Lawyer reg., Leon, Soc Ec, Col Abog Pedro Chamorro* Lawyer, Merchant Granada, Consulado Jose Sacasa Lawyer Leon Costa Rica Jose Maria Zamora Bachiller Cartago Jose Sacasa* Lawyer from Granada, res. Madrid Chiquimula (G) San Salvador Economica Sonsonate Economica Chimaltenango Comayagua Chiapas Quezaltenango Guatemala & Sacat. Verapaz Suplentes Guatemala Chiapas Comayagua Guatemala - Diputacion Provincial (1814) Jose Matias Delgado Priest Dr, Member Soc. Jose Simeon Can as Mar.no Garcia Reyes Bruno Medina Eulogio Correa Jose Maria Perez Manuel Jose Pavon Marcial Zebadua Priest Priest Priest Priest Priest Lawyer Lawyer Dr, Member Soc. Dr, Cabildo Ecc, Soc Ec Parish priest, Danli (or Mariano) Soc Ec, col abog, regidor Soc Ec, col abog, reg. Gua. Soc Ec, col abog, reg. Gu.
Marques de Aycinena Marcial Zebadua Lawyer Jose Geronimo Zelaya 511
Appendix Q: Deputies to Suprema Junta Central, Spanish Cortes & Diputaciones Provinciales, Kingdom of Guatemala, 1813-1820 (continued) Nicaragua- Diputacidn Provincial (1812-1814) CR Brig. Tomas Acosta CR Joaquin Arechavala Leon Domingo Galarza Gran. Pedro Chamorro N. Seg. Vicente Agiiero CR Anselmo Jimenez Nic. Agustin Gutierrez CR* Jose Carmen Salazar CR* Crisanto Sacasa landowner, reg., col. o f a batallon, Leon landowner, reg., cmdr o f voluntarios, Cons. Com.,Leon landowner,merchant, lawyer, reg., Cons. Com.,Granada landowner, capt. o f militia, Leon landowner, Cartago (Costa Rica) lawyer, regidor,Leon merchant, regidor, Leon Grananda* Carlos Machado
Guatemala Diputacidn Provincial (1820-1821) A) Operates at start with 1814 representatives San Salvador Jose Matias Delgado Priest Sonsonate Jose Simeon Cafias Priest Guatemala & Sacat. Manuel Jose Pavon Laywer Verapaz Marcial Zebadua Laywer B) Election of new representatives Jose Matias Delgado Priest San Salvador (ES) Economica Lawyer Verapaz (G) Antonio Rivera Jose Mariano Calderon Priest Chiquimula (G) Ciudad Real (C) Mariano Robles* Bachiller Guatemala (G) Marcial Zebadua Lawyer Guatemala & Sacat. Mariano Beltranena Lawyer Alexandra Diaz C.* Lawyer (G) San Miguel (ES) Miguel Ant. Molina Priest Jose Geronimo Zelaya Dr, Member Sociedad Ec Dr, Member Sociedad Ec Soc Ec, Col Abog, regidor Soc Ec, Col Abog, regidor Dr, Member Soc. regidor, Guatemala regidor, Guatemala regidor, Guatemala regidor, Guatemala
512
Appendix Q: Deputies to Suprema Junta Central, Spanish Cortes & Diputaciones Provinciates, Kingdom of Guatemala, 1813-1820 (continued) Nicaragua- Diputacidn Provincial (1820-1821) Joaquin Arechavala landowner, regidor, col. of batallon, Leon Domingo Galarza landowner, regidor, cmdr of voluntarios , Cons. Comercio,Leon landowner, capt. of militia, Leon Vicente Agiiero Agustin Gutierrez L. lawyer, regidor, Leon Manuel Lopez de la Plata priest, disqualified for becoming part o f Comayagua diocese Pedro Solis* priest, juez de obras pias, Leon Roberto Sacasa* lieut. coronel, Leon resident o f Leon, representative of Costa Rica Pedro Portocarrero Jose Maria Ramirez regidor, Leon, representative o f Costa Rica Manuel Gonzalez S. Intendant o f Nicaragua Nicolas Garcia Jerez Bishop o f Nicaragua Comayagua Choluteca Gracias a Dios Olancho Tegucigalpa Tocoa Yoro (Olanchito) Comayagua Diputacidn (1820) Nicolas Yrias Priest Chantre Justo Herrera regidor, Tegucigalpa Jose Jeronimo Zelaya regidor, Tegucigalpa Jose Maria Zelaya Jose Serra Merchant regidor, Tegucigalpa Jose Francisco Zelaya Santiago Gotay * Suplente
Sources: Deputy to Suprema Junta. Cabildo Selections. Xiomara Avendafio, De Subditos a Ciudadanos: las primeras elecciones en la provincia de Guatemala, 1812-1822, Revista de Historia (Managua, Nicaragua), 1994:3-4, pp. 44-54. Diputaciones Provinciales: Xiomara Avendafio, theis, pp. 170-171, 175-176; Gazeta de Guatemala, v. XVII, No. 25, 3 November 1813; El Editor Constitucional, 1820-1821, various; El Amigo de la Patria, 1820-1821, various. Manuel Lopez de la Plata exclusion from 1820 Nicaragua DP, AGI Guatemala 530, Letter 4 November 1820, Captain Geneal Gonzalez Saravia. NB: the 1813 Gazeta de Guatemala list of deputies has F. A. Davila as deputy for Chichicastenango, with Lie. Mariano Coello as his suplente. Representatives to Cortes. El Editor Constitucional, 1820-1821, various; El Amigo de la Patria, 1820-1821, various; Marie Laure Rieu-Millan, Los Diputados Americanos en las Cortes de Cadiz (Madrid: CSIC, 1990), pp. 39-45; Avendafio, De Subditos a Ciudadanos, and thesis, Annex no 2, pp. 168-169. Jose Geronimo Zelaya was an active member of the Guatemala DP, signing a 3 Sept. 1821 letter. AGI Guatemala 638.
513
Appendix R: Federal Republic o f Central America- 1824-5

R l: States, D epartm ents, Towns & Villages I. G uatem ala, 13 D epartm ents, C apital G uatem ala
Departments Towns & villages Departments Towns & villages 18 8. Escuintla 1. Sacatepequez 12 2. Chimaltenango 11 8 9. Chiquimula 3. Solola 11 8 10. San Agustin 4 4. Totonicapan 11. Verapaz 5 5. Gueguetenango 8 12. Salama 7 6. Quezaltenango 7 13. Peten 8 7. Suchitepequez 6 Comprises 114 Towns and Villages, Population Computed at 700,000
H. Salvador, 4 Departm ents, C apital: San Salvador
Departments Towns & villages Departments Towns & villages I. San Salvador 23 3. San Miguel 10 2. Sonsonate 14 4. San Vicente 8 Comprises 55 Towns and Villages, Population Computed at 350,000
III. H onduras, 12 D epartm ents, C apital: Comayagua
Departments Towns & villages Departments Towns & villages 1. Comayagua 6 7. Gracias 5 2. Tegucigalpa 5 8. Llanos 5 3. Choluteca 4 9. Sta Barbara 6 4. Nacaome 4 10. Truxillo 2 5. Cantarranas 4 11. Yoro 2 6. Jutigalpa 3 12. Segovia 11 Comprises 57 Towns and Villages, Population Computed at 200,000
IV. N icaragua, 8 Departm ents, C apital: Leon
Departments Towns & villages Departments Towns & villages 1. Leon 7 5. Subtiava 5 2. Granada 10 6. Masaya 12 3. Managua 4 7 7. Nicaragua 4. Realejo 4 8. Matagalpa 5 Comprises 53 Towns and Villages, Population Computed at 200,000
V. C osta Rica, 8 D epartm ents, C apital: San Jos
Departments Towns & villages 1. San Jose 3 2. Cartago 5 3. Ujarras 3 4. Boruca 2
Departments Towns & villages 5 .Iscan 2 6. Alajuela 1 7. Eredia 2 8. Bagases 3
514
Comprises 21 Towns and Villages, Population Computed at 50,000 Appendix R: Federal Republic of Central America- 1824-5 (cont.)
R.2 C abeceras en donde d e b e rin reunirse los electores de parroquia p a r elegir los electores de p artid o
Guatemala City Mazatenango Huehuetenango Chiquimula Tegucigalpa San Salvador Gotera Managua Matagalpa S Andres Simojoval
R.3
Cabeceras Antigua Guatemala Coban Chimaltenango Sonsonate Quesaltenango Solola San Agustin Esquipulas Quimistan Gracias Chalatenango Cojutepeque San Vicente Sacatecoluca Masaya Granada Cartago Ciudad Real Istacomitan Huistan
Salama Peten San Miguel Totonicapan Canguaco Escuintla Jalapa Comayagua Olanchito Juticalpa Santa Ana San Miguel Leon Viejo Nva. Segovia Nicaragua Comitan Tila Tuxtla Grande Tapachula
Juntas Eiectorales de Partido th a t voted in the 1825 Federal presidential elections Guatemala City Chimaltenango Huehuetenango San Salvador Chalatenango Comayagua Cantarranas Yoro Leon Masaya Costa Rica Sacatepequez Totonicapan Soconusco Sonsonate Santa Ana Tegucigalpa Juticalpa Segovia Granada Nicaragua Solola Chiquimula Salama Escuintla
G uatem ala: Quesaltenango San Agustin El Salvador: San Vicente H onduras: Nacaome Trujillo N icaragua: Sutiaba Costa Rica:
Gotera San Miguel Sacatecoluca Gracias Choluteca Sta. Barbara Llanos Managua Viejo
515
Appendix R: Federal Republic of Central America- 1824-5 (cont) R4: State of Guatemala 1825 Departments (departamento) 1. Verapaz, comprised o f the old partido o f the same name, and Peten 2. Chiquimula, comprised o f all the pueblos for the former corregimientos o f Chiquimula and Zacapa 3. Guatemala and Escuintla, formed by all the pueblos of the partido o f Escuintla and Guasacapan, the capital o f Guatemala, the villas o f Guadalupe, Nueva Petapa, the pueblos o f Mixco, Chinauta, Jocotenango, Pinula, San Pedro las Huertas, Ciudad Vieja, in the Capital, San Miguel and Santa Ynes petapa, San Juan, and San Cristobal Amatitlan, and the poblacion o f Palencia 4. Sacatepeques and Chimaltenango, with all the pueblos o f Sacatepeques not included in the Dept, o f Guatemala, and all o f the extinguished corregimiento o f Chimaltenango 5. Suchitepques and Solola: the territories and pueblos o f the alcaldias mayores o f both partidos 6. Quezaltenango and Soconusco, all the pueblos o f the extinghished corregimiento of Quezaltenango and o f the former gobiemo o f Soconusco 7. Totonicapan and Huehuetenango, the same pueblos o f both former partidos.
Department Verapaz
Chiquimula
Cabecera de Distrito Department Cabecera Distrito (district) Remedios 1. Peten Coban Cahabon 2. Cahabon Coban 3. Coban Tactic 4. Tactic Salama 5. Salama 6. Rabinal Rabinal Zacapa 1. Zacapa Chiquimula S. Agustin 2. Acasaguastlan Guastatoya 3. Sansaria Esquipulas 4. Esquipulas Chiquimula 5. Chiquimula 6. Jalapa Jalapa Asuncion Mita 7. Mita
516
Appendix R: Federal Republic of Central America- 1824-5 (cont.) R4 (cont): State of Guatemala, 1825 Department Guatemala & Escuintla Department Cabecera Distrito (district) Guatemala City Cabecera de Distrito Guatemala City S. Juan Amatitlan Concep. Escuintla Don Garcia Jalpatagua Chiquimulilla Cuajiniquilapa Antigua San Lucas S Sebn. Texar Chimaltenango San Martin San Juan Sacat. Pazum Quezaltenango Ostuncalco San Marcos Texutla Tapachula Totonicapan Momostenango Sacapulas Huehuetenango Malacatan Soloma Jacaltenango Cuilco
Sacatepeques & Chimaltenango Suchitepeques & Solola
Antigua Guatemala Solola
Soconusco & Quesaltenango
Quezaltenango
Totonicapan & Huehuetenango
Totonicapan
1. Guatemala 2. Amatitlan 3. Escuintla 4. Mixtan 5. Jalpatagua 6. Guasacapan 7. Cuajiniquilapa 1. Sacatepeques 2. San Lucas 3. Texar 4. Chimaltenango 5. Xilotepeque 6. San Juan 7. Pazum 1. Quezaltenango 2. Ostuncalco 3. S. Marcos 4. Texutla 5. Soconusco 1. Totonicapan 2. Momostenango 3. Nebaj 4. Huehuetenango 5. Malacatan 6. Soloma 7. Jacaltenango 8. Cuilco
517
Appendix R: Federal Republic of Central America- 1824-5 (cont.) R 5: Territorial Division, Guatemala, 1839-1840 Departments Parish/Pop. Departments Parish/Pop. Departments Parish/Pop. Guatemala 15/24 Escuintla 7/21 Sacatepeques 10/37 Chimaltenango 10/15 Chiquimula 14/44 Mita 8/30 Verapaz 11/21 Independent District Parishes Comandancia de Izabal 1 Comandancia del Peten 5 Additional Departments after the reintegration o f Los Altos (1840) Quezaltenango Totonicapan Solola Suchitepequez Huehuetenango____________San Marcos R6: Departments representedin Guatemalas National Assembly, 1851 Department Deputies Department Deputies Department Deputies Guatemala 8 Sacatepequez 5 Chiquimula 6 Quezaltenango 4 2 Verapaz 4 Suchitepequez Amatitlan Solola 2 2 Totonicapan 2 San Marcos 1 Huehuetenango 2 Chimaltenango 2 Escuintla El Peten 1 2 1 Santa Rosa Gualan, Izabal, and Santo Tomas 1 _____________R7: Departments and Districts o f El Salvador, 1825____________ Departments:_______ San Salvador Sonsonate San_Vicente________ San Miguel R8; Departments and Districs o f El Salvador, 1855 Department District. No. o f Pueblos Department District. No. Sonsonate Santa Ana Sonsonate Santa Ana 16 Izalco 7 Ahuachapan Cuscatlan Suchitoto Metapan 6 Ilobasco Chalatenango Chalatenango 3 Tejutla Cojutepeque 6 San Salvador San Salvador 21 San Miguel San Miguel Opico 14 La Union San Vicente San Vicente 11 Sauce Gotera Sensuntepeque 5 La Paz Osicalca Zacatecoluca 6 Oloucilta Chinameca 12 Usulutlan
o f Pueblos. 6 4 2 25 10 12 10 8 8 13 9 5
518
Appendix R: Federal Republic o f Central America- 1824-5 (cont.) R9: Departments and Districs of Honduras, 1825 Departmento Partido Comavagua Comayagua Goascaran Parishes Departmento Partido Saerario Tegucigalpa Tegucigalpa Caridad, Lamani, Curaren, Siguatepeque Chinacla Goascoran Aguanqueterique Cedros Parish Teguc. Ojojona Tatumbla Yuscaran Texiguat Cedros Orica Cantarranas Sta. B. Celilac San Pedro Yojoa Quimistan Juticalpa Catacamas Manto Somoto
Gracias
Gracias Santa Rosa
Yoro Choluteca
Yoro Olanchito Choluteca Ocotal
Gracias Intibuca Sta. Barbara Sta. Barbara Gualcha Santa Rosa San Pedro Quezailica, Sensenti Ocotepeque, Guarita Yoro. Sulaco Olancho Olancho Olanchito, Trujillo Choluteca, Corpus, S. Marcos Nacaome, Pespire Segovia Mozonte Xican Totogalpa Jalapa Esteli Yalaguina Palascaguina Pbl. Nuevo Telpancea Condega
519
Appendix R: Federal Republic of Central America- 1824-5 (cont.) RIO: Departments and Parishes of Honduras, 1831 Department Parish T egucigalpaT egucigalpa Tatumbla Ojojona Cedros Orica Texiguat Yuscaran Nacaome Choluteca Corpus Danlf Cantarranas Department Gracias Parish Department Parish Gracias Olancho Olancho Quezailica Juticalpa Llano de Sta Rosa Silca Manto Sensenti Guarita Olanchito Gualcho Trujillo Camasca Comayagua Sagrario Intibuca Caridad Cerquin Siguatepeque Cururu Ocotepeque Quimistan Santa Barbara Omoa Celilac Petoa Yojoa Yoro
Comments: Segovia, a Nicaraguan district joined Honduras between 1824 and 1826; Honduras 18314-department redistricting was apparently never implemented. Sonsonate was the only alcaldia mayor dependent on Guatemala to join a different state in 1824 (El Salvador). The state we now know as El Salvador kept the colonial name of San Salvador until 1824. Soconusco participated in the federal congress of 1824-1825, but afterwards did not join Central American politics and in 1842 was permanently annexed to Chiapas in Mexico. After 1826, the number of departments within each state varied, although the territory included in each state did not.
Rl l : Territorial Division of Costa Rica, 1825-1838
1825 Partidos Cartago San Jose
Heredia
Alajuela Guanacaste Alajuela
Guanacaste
1836 Departamentos Oriental Occidental 1841 Partidos Cartaga San Jose Heredia
Guanacaste
520
Appendix R: Federal Republic o f Central America- 1824-5 Sources: R l: Henry Dunn, Guatimala (New York: Carvill, 1828), pp. 195-196. From the ordering o f provinces, it appears that Dunn based his divisions on the Tabla a que deben arreglarse los partidos de las provincias de (state) para la eleccoon de diputados a su legislatura prepared in the ANC in May 1824. AGCA B1 Leg. 4125, Exp. 92804 has the tablas for Guatemala and Nicaragua. This legajo is missing the San Salvador divisions. R2: Tabla Para Facilitar la Eleccion de Diputados y Suplientes para el Congreso de las Provincias Unidas de Guatemala (1824?), typed copy, Museo Nacional de Historia, Guatemala. Courtesy of Museum director, Licenciado Miguel Alvarez A. R3: Estado que manifiesta el escrutinio de votos populares, praticado p o r el congreso en la sesion de 20 de abril de 1825, para la eleccion de presidente de la republica: expresando las juntas electorales de partidos.... Biblioteca Nacional de Guatemala, Coleccion Valenzuela, B087. R4: Decreto 60, Asamblea Legislativa de Guatemala, 12 October 1825, Article 1. AGCA B 11.5 Legajo 192, Expediente 4146. R5: AGCA C l Legajo 56, Expediente 1569.f 6. Tabla General de los departamentos en que queda divido el Estado de Guat.a segun lo dispuesto por la Asamb.a Constituyente. (1839) The number o f pueblos in some departments changed after several successfully petitioned to change departments. The departments o f Los Altos reintegrated, Arturo Taracena Arriola, Invencion Criolla, Sueno Ladino Pesadilla Indigena: Los Altos de Guatemala, de region a Estado, 1740-1850 (Guatemala: CIRMA, 1997), p. 279. R6: Gazeta de Guatemala, 31 Oct. 1851 in Ralph Lee Woodward, Jr., Rafael Carrera and the Emergence o f the Republic o f Guatemala (Athens: U. o f Georgia Press, 1993), p. 268. R7: Departments and Districts o f San Salvador, 1825, Constitution o f El Salvador, 1825. R8: Ysidro Menendez, Recopilacion de las Leyes de El Salvador , Book 4, Title 1, Division de los Departamentos y Pueblos que Componen el Estado. In addition to providing the 1855 division, Menendez also cites some o f the changes within the state since its formation in 1824.
521
Appendix R: Federal Republic o f Central America- 1824-5 Sources: (cont.) R9: Decree, Asamblea Constituyente del Estado de Honduras, 28 June 1825, in Revista del archivo y biblioteca nacionales, Volume 7 (1928), pp. 267-270. RIO: Constitucion del Estado de Honduras, 1831, Chapter 1, Article 6. Not implemented. R11: Marure, Efemerides, p. 36.
522
Appendix S: Important Political Events, Central America, 1825-1842 Constitutions El Salvador Federation Costa Rica Guatemala Honduras Nicaragua Federation Nicarauga El Salvador Congresses 24 June 1823 5 Mar 1824 6 Sept 1824 6 Sept 1824 15 Sept 1824 30 Jan 1825 6 Feb 1825 10 Apr 1825 14 Apr 1825 24 Apr 1825 2 May 1825 1 Feb 1826 5 Apr 1826 6 Apr 1826 13 Aug 1826 26 Oct 1826 11 Feb 1829 21 Apr 1829 22 Jun 1829 9 J u l 1829 7 Oct 1838 1 Nov 1838 25 Dec 1838 1 Aug 1839 23 Jun 1840 24 July 1824 22 November 1824 22 January 1825 11 October 1825 11 December 1825 8 April 1826 13 February 1835 (rejected by the states) 23 November 1838 18 February 1841 Asamblea Nacional Constituyente, Federation (Guatemala City) 1st AC, Estado de El Salvador (San Salvador) 1st AC, Estado de Honduras (Cedros) 1st CC, Costa Rica (San Jose) 1st CC, Guatemala (Antigua) 1st AO El Salvador (San Salvador) 1st CF, Guatemala (Antigua) 1st CC, Nicaragua 1st AO, Costa Rica (San Jose) 1st SF, Federation, (Guatemala City) 1st CR, Guatemala (Antigua & Quezaltenango, to 1826) 1st AO, Honduras (Tegucigalpa) 1st AO, Guatemala (Antigua, San Martin Jilotepeque)-Sept 1826 1st CR, Honduras (Comayagua) 1st AO, Nicaragua (Leon) 1st CR, Nicaragua (Granada) restored CR, Guatemala (Antigua) restored, AO, Guatemala (Antigua) restored, CF, Guatemala (Guatemala) restored, SF, Guatemala (Guatemala) 2nd AC, Honduras (Comayagua) 2nd AC, Costa Rica (San Jose) 1st AC, State o f Los Altos (Quezaltenango) 2nd AC, El Salvador (Zacatecoluca), dissolves 2nd AC, El Salvador (San Salvador), resumes
AC- Constituent Assembly; CC-Constituent Congress; AO-Ordinary Assembly (Congress); CFFederal Congress; SF-Federal Senate; CR-Council of Representatives (-state senate)
523
Appendix S: Important Political Events, Central America, 1825-1842 (cont.) Bishoprics 24 April 1825 San Salvador decrees (San Salvador) 29 Sept 1825 Costa Rica decrees (San Jose) 27 Dec 1842 Pope approves bishopric for El Salvador Convocations for Federations 1823-ANC-Federation (installed, 23 June) 1826-10 October-Federal President Arce, to reorganize the federation (Cojutepeque): does not take place 1826-6 December-El Salvador government invites federal delegates to Ahuachapan: does not take place) 1833-20 April- Federation calls again for new meeting; disregarded by states; end union 1832-Jan 7-El Salvador legislature revokes recognition o f federal authorities (temporary) 1832-Dec 2-Nicaragua legislature revokes recognition offederal authorities until revision o f constitution; holds onto national taxes; 1833: El Salvador, Honduras and Costa Rica follow suit. Only Guatemala pays taxes until 1838. 1832-23 December-Nicaragua calls for ANC; Federation agrees; states reject on grounds o f unfair division o f deputies 1833-23 Mar-Guatemala starts plan to convoke national assembly; Costa Rica & Nicaragua welcome 1842-17 Mar-Congress of Chinandega, proposing a 3-state federation of Honduras, EL Salvador and Nicaragua, is installed, creating a provisory national government. On 27 July, pass the pact o f Central American Confederation; never in effect Sovereign States 1838-30 April-Nicaraguan legislation declares the state sovereign, free and independent until a new federal pact can be written 1838-May 30-CF declares states free to constitute themselves as they wish as long as they keep republican government 1838-5 Nov-State o f Honduras declares state free & indep o f federation 1838-14 Nov 2-CC Costa Rica: pueblos assume fullness o f sovereignty, form free and independent state, with all the capacity o f a political body. (during the presidency/dictatorship o f Francisco Morazan, 1842, Costa Rica briefly declared for the federation again) 1839-27 Apr-Guatemalas president declares the dissolution o f the federal pact, and the state in possession of its sovereign rights.; ratified by 2nd AC Guate, July 1839 1839- Nov 29-State o f Guatemala declares its chief o f state president, a title formerly reserved for the Federation executive.Honduras, El Salvador shortly follow suit. Nicaragua changes the title to Supreme Director. 1841-30Jan-AC El Salvador renames the country a republic : term is not used until late 1840s.
524
Appendix S: Important Political Events, Central America, 1825-1842 (cont.) Treaties 11 May 1839: friendship, Guatemala & Honduras 5 June 1839: friendship, Guatemala & El Salvador 1 July 1839: friendship, Honduras & Costa Rica 24 Jul 1839: friendship, Guatemala & Nicaragua 1 Aug 1839: friendship, Guatemala & Costa Rica 10 Aug 1839: friendship, Los Altos & El Salvador 7 Oct 1842: alliance, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua & El Salvador: mutual recognition o f absolute independence; agree to become a joint political body in the case o f outside invasion; make attempts to revive the 1824 Constution an act o f treason Source: Marure, Efemerides, passim.
525
Bibliography Primary Sources: Archives

Archivo General de Centro America (AGCA, Guatemala City) Series/ Box (Legaio)-Document (Expediente) A 1.44/3-21 Al.2.4/2245-16218 A l.2/41-995, 1011 A 1.2/42-1028 A 1.2/4573-39489 Al/161-3110 Al.23/1528 A 1.2.3/44- 1128, 1818 Al.2/2331
Al.2/43-1082, 1057, 1063, 1064, 1072 Al.2.4/4779-41279 Al.40/4797 Al.22/1797-11793 Al.23/1651-10286 Al.2.4/2246-16221, 16224 A l.1/6930-57114 Al.50/42-1028, 1038 A.150/219-157
A1.23/2244-16170, 16176, 16179 A1 22/1799-11800 A l.1/1796-13455-1796
Al/6091-55306 Al/1949-13055
A1.2/2177-2195-15715-15749 A3.3/44-5344 Al.38.3.16/2645-22141 A 1.50/44-1098, 1125 A l.50/197-3988 B119.4/2558-60140 B/98-2707 B78.50/1648 B12.17/224 B / 9- 2473 A3.8, A1.25 /2603-21389 A l.50/155-3099
A 1.50/5344-45054,45389 45055, 45057 B 119.4/2540-58611 B78.50/865-21230 B78.6-3545, 3480 B 1/708- 15677 B7.25/ 113-2952 B119.2/2122-57029 B78.50/627-12577-12579 B/84-2386, 2388 Bl.10/79- 2301 B1 /4125-92804 B/715- 15976, 16036 C l/56- 1565, 1569
B/ 91- 2453, 2454, 2455,2458, 2466, 2472, 2473 B5.4/59- 1380 Cl/38- 942, 943 B5.ll/75-2246 Cl/36- 897, 898, 904, 905, 941
526
C l / 1 1 7 - 3 4 4 6 ,3 4 4 9 ,3 4 5 6
C l / 3 6 , 3 8 , 1 1 1 , 1 3 0 , 144
Archivo General de Indias (AGI, Seville) Legajos: Escribania 339 Indiferente Impresos Americanos 45/16.
Guatemala 413, 414, 415, 416,417,423,428, 429, 430,431, 437, 445,446, 452, 453,473,497, 501, 502, 507, 525, 530, 531, 533, 534, 572, 579, 621,628, 632, 624, 625, 629, 631, 636, 637, 638, 649, 668, 689, 690, 721, 722, 813, 814, 845, 847
Archivo Historico del Archidiocesis de Guatemala (AHAG, Guatemala City) (C) Correspondencia, 1822-1833: Tl-99, 105, 107, 108, 110, 111 (G) Gobiemo del Estado (Guatemala): Volume 21, Volume 22
Archivo General de la Nacion (AGN, San Salvador) Seccion Antigua: Caja 1, Carpeta 2 Caja 1, Carpeta 4 Caja 3 Correspondencia Oficial, 1813-1818 Sonsonate, Libro de Actas, 1820-1821. Correspondencia oficial, 1821-1871
Archivo Historico Nacional (AHN, Madrid) Consejos 20950-20953, 20983, 20967-20968 Archivo Municipal de Sonsonate (AMS, Sonsonate) Seccion Antigua, Caja 1800-1809, No 3, Libro de Elecciones, 1809-1820 Seccion Modema, 1810-1821, No. 3
527
Seccion Juzgados, 1821-1829, Seccion Actas Municipales, 1821-1829, Libro de Actas, 1826, 1827
Archivo Municipal (Antigua, Guatemala) Antigua, Libro de Actas, 1821-1825 Tegucigalpa, Libro de Cabildo, 1840, 1841, 1843. Archivo Municipal de Tegucigalpa (AMT, Tegucigalpa) Libro de Actas Municipales, 1801-1832 Libro de Actas de Cabildo, 1826. Archivo Nacional de Honduras (ANH, Tegucigalpa) Colonial: Cajas 99, 112, 114, 115, 197, 1776 Diputacion Provincial: Caja:Expediente(s) 160: 2, 4, 10 161: 71, 72, 94, 96
162: 108, 120, 122, 128, 130, 132, 136, 147, 149, 160 163: 178 164: 275, 276, 283, 295, 296, 300, 402
165: 305, 316, 322, 323, 328, 332, 338, 352, 354, 366, 373, 379, 402 168:538,540,544 169:599 171:10,50 176:
Biblioteca Nacional (BN, Madrid) Sala Cervantes, MS 1447 and MS 3023.
528
John Carter Brown Library (JCBL, Providence, Rl) Broadsides 62-645. Catdlogo de los individuos que componen la real sociedad de amantes de la patria de Guatemala en el ano de 1799, Guatemala. Broadsides 70-2280. Lista de los Individuos del ilustre colegio de abogados de este reyno de Guatemala. Nueva Guatemala. 1813. Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres (MAE, Paris) Correspondance Consulaire, Guatemala, Volume 2: 1844-1845 Primary Sources: Printed Spain Covarrubias Horozco, Sebastian de. Tesoro de la lengva castellana, o espahola. Madrid: R. Sanchez, Imprentadel Rey, 1611. Ferdinand VII. Real decreto para el establecimiento del sistema general de hacienda: instruccion para el repartimiento y cobranza de la contribucion del reyno; y bulas dadas por el santisimo padre Pio VII en Roma a 15, 16, 17 y 18 de abril de 1817, Madrid, Impr. Real, 1817; Mexico, Reimpreso en la oficina de J.B. de Arizpe, 1817 Spain. Coleccion de Fueros Municipales y Cartas Pueblas de las (sic) reinos de Castilla, Leon, Corona de Aragon y Navarra, Munoz y Torrero, Tomas, ed. Valladolid: Lex Nova, 1977. Spain. Instruccion, y ordenanza, que establezco para el goviem o de la Tesoreria general, sobre cuyo pie ha de continuar desde primero de mayo de este presente ano de mil setecientos y veinteyseis. Madrid: s.n., 1726. Spain. Instrucciones establecidas para los posteros de la Real Loteria. s.l.: sn, 1768. Spain. Recopilacion de Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias, 4a Impresion. Madrid: Consejo de la Hispanidad, 1943 (1791).
529
Spain. Con esta fecha ...e l siguiente decreto: La experiencia esta constantemente demostrando la precision de que tengan un centro de unidad todas las operaciones de mi Real Hacienda ... [Madrid, 1798]. Spain. Novisima recopilacion de las leyes de Espana, dividida en X II libros: en que se reforma la recopilacion...de 1567, reimpresa ultimamente en el de 1775, y incorporan las pragmaticas, cedulas, decretos, ordenes y resoluciones reales, y otras providencias no recopiladas, y expedidas hasta el de 1804, mandada form ar por el seiior don Carlos IV. Madrid: s.n., 1805-1829 Spain (Cortes). Diario de las Discusiones y actas de las Cortes, 23 volumes (Cadiz, 1811-1813) Spain, Laws and Statutes, 1810-1822. Coleccion de los decretos y ordenes que han expedido las Cortes generates y extraordinarias Central America Central America, Federal Republic. Decree, 24 January 1824. E stablishm ent^ public schools. Central America, Federal Republic. Decree, 24 August 1824. No 120. Subscriptions. Anonymous. Noticias del Reyno de Guatemala en 1778. Anales de la Academia de Geografia e Historia de Guatemala XLIV (1990):251-252. Anonymous., Soconusco, territorio de Centro-America ocupado militarmente de orden del gobiemo mexicano. Guatemala: Imprenta de la Paz, 1842. Asamblea Nacional Constituyente. Informe Sobre la Constitution leido en la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente el 23 de mayo de 1824, in Carmelo Saenz de Santa Maria, El proceso ideologico-institucional desde la Capitama General de Guatemala hasta las provincias unidas del Centro de America: de provincias a estados. Revista de Indias 38:151/152 (1978): 219-285.
530
Aycinena, Mariano [Un Centroamericano]. Otras Reflexiones sobre reforma politico en Centro-America. Philadelphia: E.G. Dorsey, 1833. Aycinena, Mariano, [Un Centroamericano]. Otras Reflexiones sobre reforma politico en Centro-America. New York: Imprenta de Don Juan de la Granja, 1834. Bustamante, Jose et al. Instruccion formada de orden de la Junta Preparatoria para facilitar las elecciones de diputados y oficios consejiles. Guatemala: [s.n], 1812. Colegio de Abogados (Guatemala). Lista de los Individuos del ilustre colegio de abogados de este reyno de Guatemala.. Guatemala: [s.n.], 1813 Cortes y Larraz, Pedro. Descripcion geogrdfico-moral de la Diocesis de Goathemala. Guatemala: [s.n.], 1958 (1768). Crowe, Frederick. The Gospel in Central America. London: Charles Gilpin, 1850. Esquemeiing, John. The Buccaneers o f America, First Publish d in 1784. Glorieta: Rio Grande Press, 1992 (1784). Filisola, Vicente. La cooperacion de Mexico en la independencia de Centro-america, por el general Vicente Filisola, Vol. 35-36, Documentos ineditos o muy raros para la historia de Mexico, Genaro Garcia, ed. Mexico: C Bouret, 1911. Fuentes y Guzman, Francisco Antonio de. Recordacion Florida,Carmelo Saenz de Santa Maria, ed., Vol. 230, Biblioteca de Autores Espafioles. Madrid: Ed. Atlas, 1969. Gage, Thomas. Travels in the New World, ed. J.E.S. Thompson. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992 (1648). Guatemala (Aycinena, Juan Jose, Consejo Representativo). A los Gobemadores Locales de Guatemala, 19 December 1837. Guatemala: [s.n.], 1837 Juarros, Domingo. Compendio de la Historia del Reino de Guatemala, 1500-1800. Guatemala: Editorial Piedra Santa, 1981.
531
Juarros, Domingo. Compendio de la historia de la ciudad de Guatemala. Guatemala: Imprenta Beteta, 1808-1821. Larrazabal, Antonio. Apuntamientos sobre la agricultura y comercio del reyno de Guatemala...Real Consulado en Junta de Gobiemo de 20 de octubre de 1810. Nueva Guatemala: Manuel Arevalo, 1811. Leon (Diputacion Provincial) Manifiesto de la Diputacion Provincial de Leon a Sus Provincias de Nicaragua y Costa Rica, 7 Febrero 1822, in Filisola, La Cooperacion de Mexico en la independencia de Centro-america Marure, Alejandro. Bosquejo historico de las revoluciones de Centroamerica, desde 1811 hasta 1834, 2 vols, Vol. 65-66, Coleccion 15 de Septiembre. Guatemala: Ministerio de Educacion Publica, 1960 (1838). . Efemerides de los hechos acaecidos en la reptiblica de Centro-America desde el ano de 1821 hasta el de 1842. Vol. 9, Biblioteca Guatemalteca de Cultura Popular. Guatemala: Editorial del Ministerio de Educacion Publica, 1956 (1844)) Menendez, Isidoro. Recopilacion de las Leyes del Salvador en Centro-America, 18211855. Guatemala: Imprenta de L. Luna, 1855. Mier y Teran, Manuel. Situation poUtica del Reino de Guatemala, in Carlos Melendez, ed., Textos Fundamentales de la Independencia Centroamericana. San Jose: Editorial Universitaria Centroamericana, 1971. Miranda, Rafael. Alocucion: Proyecto de Reformas, Esposicion dirigda al Consejo. Guatemala: Imprenta de la Aurora, 1845. Montufar y Coronado, Manuel. Memorias para la Historia de la Revolucion de Centroamerica), 2 vols, Vol. 65-66, Col. 15 de Septiembre. Guatemala: Ministerio de Educacion Publica, 1963(1832).
532
Peynado, Jose Maria. Instrucciones para la constitution fundamental de la Monarquia Espaiiola y su gobiemo Instrucciones para la constitution fundamental de la Monarquia Espaiiola y su Gobiemo, de que ha de tratarse en las proximas Cortes Generales de la nation dadaspor el M.I. Ayuntamiento de la M .N ..y L. Ciudad de Guatemala a su diputado el Sr. Dr. D. Antonio de Larrazabal, Canonigo penitenciario de esta Sta. Iglesia Metropolitana. Guatemala: Editorial del Ministerio de Educacion Publica, 1953 (1811). Remesal, Antonio de. Historia General de las Indias Occidentales y particular de la Gobernacion de Chiapay Guatemala, Carmelo Saenz de Santa Maria, ed., Vol. 175, Biblioteca de Autores Espafioles. Madrid: Ediciones Atlas, 1964. Sarmiento, Domingo Faustino. Argiropolis. [Buenos Aires]: Secretaria de Culture de la Nacion, A-Z Editora, 1994 (1851). Solorzano, Juan de. Politico Indiana, Ochoa Brun, Miguel Angel, ed, Vol. 252-256, Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles. Madrid: Ediciones Atlas, 1972. Suaso, R.P. Dr. Fr. Tomas. Sermon predicado el quince desetiembre (sic) de mil ochocientos cuarenta y uno, aniversario de nuestra independencia del gobiemo espahol en la santa iglesia catedral de Guatemala. Guatemala: Imprenta del Exercito (sic), 1841. Tegucigalpa, Municipalidad de. Censo formado de orden del Noble Ayuntamiento de esta villa de Tegucigalpa, de sus vecinos y havitantes con expresion de sus edades, oficios, y notas....se comenso en lo de enero de 1821, in Revista del Archivo y Biblioteca Nacionales de Honduras, Nos. 24-27. Tegucigalpa: Tipografia Nacional, 1909-1910. Thompson, George A. Narrative o f an Official Visit to Guatemala. London: John Murray, 1829.
533
Valenzuela, Pedro Jose. Memoria presentada al Congreso Federal de Centro America, al comenzar sus sesiones ordinarias del ano de 1832. Por Pedro Jose Valenzuela, secretario provisional del Estado y del despacho de guerra y marina. Guatemala.Imprenta Nueva, 1832. Vicente Toledo y Vivero and Captain Joseph Celaya, Nomina de los Vecinos Principales del Real de Minas de Tegucigalpa en 1762, Revisa del Archivo y Biblioteca Nacional de Honduras 25:1/2 (1946):6-10 Zelaya, Pedro Martin de. Copia del Ynforme del Subdelgado de Thegucigalpa, August 8, 1793, Boletin del Archivo General de Guatemala, 7:2 (1941): 242-244. Newspapers Gazeta de Guatemala (1797-1816) El Editor Constitucional (1820-1821) El Amigo de la Patria (1820-1821) Constitutions Constitucion Politica de la monarquia espaiiola, 1812 Constitucion de la Republica Federal de Centro-America, 1824 Constitucion del Estado del Salvador, 1824 Constitucion del Estado de Guatemala, 1825 Constitucion del Estado de Honduras, 1825 Constitucion del Estado de Honduras, 1838 Constitucion del Estado del Salvador, 1841 Secondary Sources Acuna, Victor Hugo. Comunidad politica e identidad politica en Costa Rica entrel821 y 1870, V Conferencia de Historia Centroamericana, San Salvador, July 2000
534
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities.. New York: Verso, 1983 [199lrev.]. Anna, Timothy. Inventing Mexico: Provincehood and Nationhood After Independence, Bulletin o f Latin American Research 15 (January 1995): 7-17. , Timothy E. Anna, The rule o f Agustin de Iturbide: a reappraisal, Journal o f Latin American Studies 17:1 (May 1985): 79-119. , Spain and the Loss o f America. Lincoln: U. o f Nebraska Press, 1983. Artola, Miguel. La Espaha de Fernando VII. Madrid: Espasa, 2nd ed., 1999. , Los Afrancesados. Madrid: Sociedad de Estudios y Publicaciones, 1953. Avendano, Xiomara. Procesos Electorates y Clase Politica en la Federacion de Centroamerica, 1810-1840. PhD thesis, Colegio de Mexico, 1994. , Las Caracteristicas de la Ciudadania en Centroamerica durante el siglo XDC: Estudio de los distritos electorates de Quezaltenango y Granada, Revista de Historia , 5-6 (1995): 20-29. Barahona, Marvin. La alcaldia mayor de Tegucigalpa bajo el regimen de intendencias. Tegucigalpa: Instituto Hondurefio de Antropologia e Historia, 1996. Barman, Roderick. Brazil: The Forging o f a Nation, 1798-1852. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988. Benoit, Bruno, ed. Ville et Revolution Frangaise, Actes du Colloque international Linos, Mars, 1883, sous la direccion de Bruno Benoit. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon, 1994.
535
Brown, Richmond F. Profits, Prestige, and Persistence: Juan Fermin de Aycinena and the Spirit o f Enterprise in the Kingdom o f Guatemala,' Hispanic American Historical Review 75 (August 1995): 404-440. Burkholder, Mark A. and Chandler, D.S. From Impotence to Authority: The Spanish Crown and the American Audiencias, 1687-1808. Columbia: University o f Missouri Press, 1977. Caceres, Luis Rene, ed. Lecturas de Historia de Centroamerica. [San Jose, CR]: Banco Centroamericano de Integracion Economica, 1989. Casasola Vargas, Silvia and Narda Alcantara Valverde. La estrategia matrimonial de la red de poder de Guatemala colonial. 1999, MS. Casaus Arzu, Marta. Guatemala . Linajey Racismo. San Jose, CR: FLACSO, 1992. Castro, Concepcion de. Campomanes: Estado y reformismo ilustrado. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1996. Chambers, Sarah, From Subjects to Citizens: Honor, Gender and Politics in Arequipa, Peru, 1780-1854 (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999). Chaverri Mora, Maria de los Angeles. La Alcaldia mayor de Tegucigalpa en la Relacion Geografica de Don Baltasar Ortiz de Letona. HI Congreso Centroamericano de Historia, San Jose, Costa Rica, July 1996. Chiaramonte, Jose Carlos. Ciudades Provincias, Estados: Origenes de la Nacion Argentina. [Buenos Aires]: Editora Espasa Calpe, 1997. Chinchilla Aguilar, Emesto. El Ayuntamiento colonial de la Ciudad de Guatemala. Guatemala: Editorial Universitaria, 1961.
536
, El Ramo de Aguas de la Ciudad de Guatemala en la epoca colonial. Revista del Instituto de Antropologia e Historia de Guatemala. 5 (June 1953): 19-31. Chust, Manuel. La cuestion nacional americana en las Cortes de Cadiz. Valencia: Centro F.T. y Valiente UNED, 1999. Cunniff, Roger L. Mexican Municipal Electoral Reform, 1810-1822, in Nettie Lee Benson, ed., Mexico and the Spanish Cortes, 1810-1822. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1968. Dym, Jordana. Conceiving Central America: Public, Patria and Nation in the Gazeta de Guatemala (1797-1807), NYU Graduate History Student Association Seminar, May 1997, MS. El Salvador. Recopilacion de Leyes relativas a la historia de los Municipios de El Salvador, Jorge Larde y Larin, ed. San Salvador: Ministerio del Interior, 1950. Fernandez Hernandez, Bemabe. El Reino de Guatemala durante el Gobiemo de Antonio Gonzalez Saravia, 1801-1811. Guatemala: Comision Universitaria Guatemalteca de Conmemoracion del Quinto Centenario del Descubrimiento de America, 1993. Fernandez Molina, Jose Antonio. Colouring the World in Blue: The Indigo Boom and the Central American Market, 1750-1810. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1992. Fisher, J.R. Government and Society in Colonial Peru: The Intendant System, 17841814. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970. Floyd, Troy S. The Guatemalan Merchants, the Government and the Provincianos, 1750-1800. Hispanic American Historical Review 61:1 (1961)
537
Fonseca, Elisabeth. Economia y Sociedad en Centroamerica (1540-1680), in Julio Pinto Soria, ed., Historia General de Centroamerica, v. 2, El Regimen Colonial (1524-1570). Madrid: FLACSO, 1993. Fowler, David. Introduction: The "Forgotten Century: Mexico, 1810-1910. Bulletin o f Latin American Research 15 (January 1995): 1-4. Fowler, Will. Mexico in the age o f proposals. 1821-1853. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998. Gallardo, Ricardo. Las Constituciones de El Salvador, Las Constituciones Hispanoamericanas, Volume 14, ed. Manuel Fraga Iribame. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispanica, 1961. Garcia Anoveros, Jesus Maria, ed. Poblacion y estado sociorreligioso de la diocesis de Guatemala en el ultimo tercio del siglo XVIII. Guatemala: Editorial Universitaria, 1991. Guardino, Peter. Peasants, Politics, and the Formation o f M exico s National State: Guerrero, 1800-1857. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996. Guardino, Peter F. and Charles Walker. The State, Society and Politics in Peru and Mexico in the Late Colonial and Early Republican Periods. Latin American Perspectives 19:2 (Spring 1992): 10-43. Guerra, Fran?ois-Xavier. Modernidad e Independencia. Ensayos sobre las revoluciones hispanoamericanos. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 1992. Guion Historico del Poder Legislativo de El Salvador, l aParte: ConstituyentesLegislaturas, Sinteses Biograficos de sus presidentes, 1822-1870. San Salvador: Publicacion de la Asamblea Legislativa, 1966.
538
Hamnett, Brian R. Benito Juarez, Early Liberalism, and the Regional Politics of Oaxaca. Bulletin o f Latin American Research 10 (January 1991): 3-22. , Roots o f Insurgency: Mexican Regions, 1750-1824. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Joseph, Gilbert, and Daniel Nugent, eds. Everyday Forms o f State Formation: The Negotiation o f Rule in M odem Mexico. Durham: Duke University Press, 1995 Juan, Jesus Aquino and Arturo Corzo Gamboa. La independencia de Chiapas y sus anexiones a Mexico (1821-1824). Tuxtla Gutierrez (Chiapas, Mexico): Universidad Autonoma, 1994. Karnes, Thomas L. The Failure o f Union: Central America, 1824-1960. Chapel Hill, NC: University o f North Carolina Press, 1961. Kramer, W Lovell, W.G., and Lutz, C. H. La Conquista Espaiiola de Centroamerica, in Julio Pinto Soria, ed., Historia General de Centroamerica, v. 2, El Regimen Colonial (1524-1570). Madrid: FLACSO, 1993 Laure Rieu-Millan, Marie. Los Diputados Americanos en las Cortes de Cadiz. Madrid: CSIC, 1990. Lauria-Santiago, Aldo. An agrarian republic: commercial agriculture and the politics o f peasant communities in El Salvador, 1823-1914. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1999. Lindo-Fuentes, Hector, and Lyle Gudmundson. Central America, 1821-1871. Tuscaloosa: University o f Alabama Press, 1995. Lujan Munoz, Jorge. La Independencia y la Anexion Centroamericana a Mexico. Guatemala: Serviprensa, 1982.
539
Lutz, Christopher H. Santiago de Guatemala 1541-1773: City, Caste and the Colonial Experience. Norman: University o f Oklahoma Press, 1994. Lynch, John. Bourbon Spain, 1700-1808. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989. MacFarlane, Anthony. The Rebellion o f the Barrios: Urban Insurrection in Bourbon Quito, 1765 in Riots in the Cities: Popular Politics and the Urban Poor in Latin America, 1765-1910, Silvia M. Arrom and S. Ortoll, eds. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources Books, 1996. Macleod, Murdo. Historia socio-economica de la America Central espahola, 15201720. Guatemala: Editorial Santa Piedra, 1990. Magdaleno, Ricardo. Titulos de Indias. Valladolid: Archivo General de Simancas, 1954. Mallon, Florencia. Peasant and Nation: The Making o f Postcolonial Mexico and Peru. Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1995. Maravall, Jose Antonio. Estudios de la historia delpensamiento espahol (siglo XVIII). Madrid: Biblioteca Mondadori, 1991. Margadant, Ted W. Urban Rivalries in the French Revolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992. Martinez Castillo, Mario Felipe. Apuntamientos para una historia colonial de Tegucigalpa y su alcaldia mayor. Tegucigalpa: Editorial Universitaria, 1982. Me Alistair, Lyle N. Spain and Portugal in the New World, 1492-1700. Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 1984. Melendez, Carlos. La Independencia de Centro America . Madrid: MAPFRE, 1993
540
, ed. Textos Fundamentales de la independencia centroamericana. [San Jose]: editorial Universitaria Centroamericana, 1971. Monterey, Francisco J., ed. Historia de El Salvador, Anotaciones Cronologicas, 18101842, Volume 1. San Salvador: Editorial Universitaria, 1996. Moore, John Preston. The Cabildo in Peru under the Bourbons: A study in the decline and resurgence o f local governments in the Audiencia o f Lima 1700-1824. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1966. . The Cabildo in Peru under the Hapsburgs: A Study in the Origins and Powers o f the Town Council in the Viceroyalty o f Peru, 1530-1700. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1954. Morazzani de Perez Enciso, Gisela. Las ordenanzas de intendentes de Indias (Cuadro para su estudio). Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela, Facultad de Derecho, 1972. Munro, Dana. The Five Republics o f Central America: Their political and economic development and their relations with the United States. New York: Russell & Russell, 1967(1918). Nader, Helen. Liberty in Absolutist Spain: The Habsburg Sale o f Towns, 1516-1700. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990. Ordonez y Jonama, Ramiro. Primeras Damas del Reino, de la Republica Federal, del Estado y de la Republica de Guatemala Revista de la Academia Guatemalteca de Estudios Genealogicos, heraldicos y Historicos. Ots Capdequi, Jose Maria. El regimen municipal hispanoamericano del periodo colonial, concejos y ciudades. Tierra Firme m-IV (1936): 353-381.
541
Oyuela, Leticia. Fe, riqueza y poder: Antologia critica de documentos para la historia de Honduras. Tegucigalpa: Editorial Guaymuras, 1992. Palma Murga, Gustavo. Nucleos de poder local y relaciones familiares en la ciudad de Guatemala a finales del siglo XVTII. Mesoamerica (USA) 7 (1986): 241-308. Palmer, Stephen. A Liberal Discipline: Inventing Nations in Guatemala and Costa Rica, 1870-1900. PhD Thesis, Columbia University, 1990. Pardo, Jose Joaquin. Efemerides para escribir la historia de la muy noble y muy leal ciudad de Santiago de los Caballeros del Reino de Guatemala. Guatemala: Sociedad de Geografia e Historia de Guatemala, 1944. Parry, John Horace. The sale o f public office in the Spanish Indies under the Hapsburgs. Berkeley: University of California Press 1953. Patch, Robert W. The Bourbon Reforms, City Councils, and the Struggle for Power in Yucatan, 1770-1796, in Jaime E. Rodriguez O., ed., Mexico in the Age o f Democratic Revolutions, 1750-1850. Boulder: Lynn Rienner Publishers, 1994. Perez Valenzuela, Pedro. La nueva Guatemala de la Asuncion. Guatemala: Ministerio de Educacion Publica, 1934. Phelan, John Leddy. The People and the King: The Comunero Revolution in Colombia, 1781. London: University o f Wisconsin Press, 1978. Pinto Soria, Julio. Raices historicas del estado en Centroamerica (Guatemala: Editorial Universitaria de Guatemala, 1980. . Centroamerica, de la colonia al Estado nacional, 1800-1840. Guatemala: Editorial Universitaria de Guatemala 1986.
542
Priestly, Herbert Ingram. Jose de Galvez, Visitor-General o f New Spain (1765-1771). Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1916. Puente Candamo, Jose Agustin de la. Historiografia de la Independencia del Peru f Revista de Historia de America 59 (1967): 280-293. Rodriguez, Mario. The Cadiz Experiment in Central America, 1808-1826. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978. Rodriguez O., Jaime E., ed. Mexico in the age o f democratic revolutions, 1750-1850. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1994. Saenz de Santa Maria, Carmelo, ed, and Maria del Carmen Deola de Giron, paleography. Libro Viejo de la Fundacion de Guatemala. Guatemala: Editorial Piedra Santa, 1991. Sahlins, Peter. Boundaries: the making o f France and Spain in the Pyrenees. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989 Salazar, Ramon A. Mariano de Aycinena, (Hombres de la Independencia ). Guatemala: Editorial del Ministerio de Educacion Publica, 1952. Samayoa Guevara, Hector Humberto. Implantacion del Regimen de Intendencias en el Reino de Guatemala. Guatemala: Ministerio de Educacion Publica, 1960. Santos Perez, Jose Manuel Politica y comercio: el cabildo y los regidores de Santiago de Guatemala, 1713-1787. PhD thesis, Universidad de Salamanca, 1996. Sarmiento, Jose. A Historia de Olancho. Tegucigalpa: Editorial Guaymuras, 1990.
543
Smith, Robert S. Produccion y comercio de afiil en la Guatemala colonial, in Luis Rene Caceres, ed., Lecturas de Historia de Centroamerica. [San Jose, CR]: Banco Centroamericano de Integracion Economica, 1989. Stein, Stanley and Barbara Stein. The Colonial Heritage o f Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970. Stem, Steven J.,ed. Resistance, Rebellion, and Consciousness in the Andean Peasant World, 18th to 20th Centuries. Madison, WI: University o f Wisconsin Press, 1987. Stoetzer, O. Carlos. The Scholastic Roots o f the Spanish American Revolutions. New York: Fordham University Press, 1979. Taplin, Glen W. Middle American Governors. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1972. Taracena Arriola, Arturo. Invencion Criolla, Sueno Ladino, Pesadilla Indigena: Los Altos de Guatemala, de region a Estado, 1740-1850. Antigua, Guatemala: CIRMA, 1997. Taracena, Luis Pedro. Ilusion minera y poder politico: la alcaldia mayor de Tegucigalpa, Siglo XVIII. Tegucigalpa: Ediciones Guaymuras, 1998. Thumer, Mark. From Two Republics to One Divided: Contradictions o f Postcolonial Nationmaking in Andean Peru. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997. Tozzer, Alfred M. Stephens, and Prescott, Bancroft and others. Los Mayas antiguos. Mexico: Colegio de Mexico, 1941, pp. 33-60. Valle, Rafael Heliodoro, ed. La anexion de Centro America a Mexico (documentosy escritos de 1821.1 vol. Mexico: Secretariade Relaciones Exteriores, 1924-1949. Van Oss, Adriaan. Catholic Colonialism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
544
. The Autarkic Colonial Cities o f Central America in Robert J. Ross and Gerard J. Telkamp, eds., Colonial Cities: essays on urbanism in a colonial context. Boston: M Nijoflf, 1985. Vazquez, Josefina Zoraida. Un viejo tema: el federalismo y el centralismo Historia Mexicana 42:3 (1993): 621-631. Viotti da Costa, Emilia. The Brazilian Empire.myths & histories. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000. Walker, Charles. Smoldering Ashes: Cuzco and the creation o f Republican Peru, 17801840. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999. Webre, Stephen A. Poder e ideologia: La Consolidacion del sistema colonial (15421700), in Julio Pinto Soria, ed., Historia General de Centroamerica, v. 2, El Regimen Colonial (1524-1570). Madrid: FLACSO, 1993. . Water and society in a Spanish American city: Santiago de Guatemala, 15551773. Hispanic American Historical Review 70 (February 1990): 57-84. . The Social and Economic Bases o f Cabildo Membership in Seventeenth-Century Santiago de Guatemala, PhD thesis, Tulane University, 1980. Woodward Jr., Ralph Lee. Rafael Carrera and the emergence o f the Republic o f Guatemala, 1821-1871. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1993. , The Consulado de Comercio o f Guatemala, 1793-1871. PhD thesis, Tulane University, 1962. Wortman, Miles A. Government and Society in Central America, 1680-1840. New York: Columbia University Press, 1982.
545
, Rentas Publicas y Tendencias Economicas en Centroamerica, 1787-1819 in Luis Rene Caceres, ed., Lecturas de Historia de Centroamerica. [San Jose, CR]: Banco Centroamericano de Integration Economica, 1989. Zelaya Garay, Oscar Gerardo. Tipificacion del Grupo Social Dominante en el Antiguo Departamento de Tegucigalpa, 1839-1875. BA thesis, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Honduras, 1991. Zubiri Marin, Maria Teresa. "El cabildo de Caracas y la intendencia: un enfrentamiento significativo," in Coloquio Intemacional Carlos I I I y su Siglo:Actas, Vol. 2. Madrid: Universidad Complutense: Departamento de Historia Modema, 1987.
Websites
w a w v .
hondudata.com/enciclopedia/enciclonevv/honduras/presidentes/ioaquinrivera.htm hondudata.com/enciclopedia/enciclonevv/honduras/presidentes/juanlindo.htm
w avav.
wAVAvhondudata.com/enciclopedia/enciclonew/honduras/presidentes/ioseantoniomarquez.
546

Jordana Dym. A Sovereign State of Every Village City, State and Nation in Independence Era Central America

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Jordana Dym. A Sovereign State of Every Village City, State and Nation in Independence Era Central America

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

INFORMATION TO USERS

Professor Antonio Feros

UMI Number 9985245

Copyright 2000 by Dym, Jordana All rights reserved.

Jordana Dym All Rights Reserved, 2000

DEDICATION For my parents, Clive L. Dym and Rita T.Gelb.

Table of Contents (Continued)

List of Tables (continued)

R3: Federation: Juntas Electorates de Partido that voted in the 1825

Fig. 1: Audiencia de Guatemala, ca. 1600

Fig. 2: Audiencia de Guatemala, 1657

Fig. 3: Yucatan and Guatemala, ca 1671

Fig. 4: Kingdom o f Guatemala, ca. 1690

F r$m Gntmnn't " HterJ/ua* / Y i r / i a , ivritltn in iht itvtnutnlk ttninrj.

Map of Central A m tric a .

IS 10-1840. PhD thesis, Colegio de Mexico, 1994.

Spanish Constitutional period.

Figure 5: Audiencia de Guatemala, Eighteenth Century

Soria, ed., Historia General de Centroamerica. v. 2, El Regimen Colonial (1524-1570) (Madrid:

Figure 6: Commercial Trade Routes o f Colonial Central America

Figure 7: Principal Agricultural Products, Kingdom o f Guatemala

Figure 8: Plan of New Guatemala City, 1776

Figure 9: Jurisdiction o f New Guatemala, ca. 1776

Table 2.1: Government o f the Kingdom of Guatemala (1542-1786)

Central Authorities State & provincial authorities

Local authorities Central Authorities State & provincial authorities

61 Recopilacion, Book 4, Title 8, Law 6. 62 Recopilacion, Book 5, Title 3, Law 19 (1578).

Figure 10: Alcaldia Mayor, San Salvador, 1778

16 Wortman, Government and Society, p. 143.

Figure 11: Proposed Road to Omoa, 1780s

62 AGI Guatemala 628, Real Cedula 17 July 1768, Madrid.

Granada, Leon, Rivas, Esteli, Nva. Segovia, Nicaragua,

Cartago Comayagua, Truxillo

Figure 12: Map of the Kingdom of Guatemala, ca. 1786

Figure 13: Chains of Political Authority (Secular), Kingdom o f Guatemala

S q b d ib p ltf or T tn itid e t. da O br.

16 AGI Guatemala 690, Letter o f Ayuntamiento o f San Salvador, 29 May 1787.

In Nicaragua, Rivas and Potosi rallied to

51 C onstitucion P olitico d e la M onarquia Espanola, 1812, Title 6, Chapter 1, Article 310.

1 0 9 AGI Guatemala 624.

Table 6.1: Selected Declarations of Independence, Central America, 1821-1822

Spain Spain, Mexico Abs. Ind. Guate. Guate;Tot. Spain, Mx Mexico

Mexico Mexico Guatemala

CC CC CC CC CC CC CC, Gvr, public CC-Cabildo abierto CC-poll

Mx. w.CA Mexico Mexico Mex, Gu Let Junta decide Mexico

Table 6.1: Selected Declarations of Independence, Central America, 1821-1822 (cont.)

votes with theirs.

In its next meeting, the Antigua council resumed administration o f

Table 6.2: Juntas Gubernativas, Central America, 1821-1823

Leon Granada San Salvador

Nicaragua Nicaragua El Salvador

Cartago (rotate) Quezaltenango

Costa Rica Guatemala

33 Taracena, Invencion Criolla, pp. 88-93.

107 Taracena, Invention Criolla, pp. 88-93.

residents the writings (escritos) o f (Jose Francisco)Barrundia.

Table 6J City Councilors of Guatemala City, Sonsonate, Tegucigalpa, 1821 Position

Eusebio Ruiz Dionisio de Herrera

Joaquin Sosa Rafael Rivas Eduardo Vega

18271829 18271830 1827

Nicaragua El Salvador-Federation (Fed uses Guate. troops) Federation-Honduras

Source: Marure, Efemerides, passim.