You are on page 1of 570


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.

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


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


Ada Ferrer

Professor Antonio Feros

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

UMI Number 9985245

Copyright 2000 by Dym, Jordana All rights reserved.

__ ___



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

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

© Jordana Dym All Rights Reserved, 2000

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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 multitude—over 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 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

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project has been made possible due to generous financial support from New York University’s 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 Spain’s 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

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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, Fran^oise 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.


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the implications bear comparison with concomitant processes elsewhere in the former Iberian empire. Although the study takes its evidence from Central America. and other moments o f decolonization. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Creoie elites and o f mestizo and Indian villagers. provincial divisions and nation-state formation. . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 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.

1785-1807 Chapter 5: “We ought only to obey our Mayors” : City and State under a Constitutional Monarchy. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. State and Nation in Central America. 1524-1760 Chapter 2: City & Colonial State. Natural Liberty.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. 1760-1785 Chapter 4: Bourbon Town Council & Spanish State: 1760-1807. 1542-1760 v vi viii xii xiii xv xvii 1 22 63 Chapter 3: Bourbon Town Council & Spanish State: 1760-1807. New Societies: the Central American Municipality in Independence. 1824-1839 Conclusion 341 422 277 x Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Part 2: The Intendancy Reforms. 1821-1823 Chapter 7: Republican States: City. . Part 1: The First Reforms: Taxation and Real Hacienda . 1809-1821 217 157 112 Chapter 6: Anarchic Dogma.

.Table of Contents (Continued) Appendices Bibliography 429 526 xi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

14 Map. 1776 Jurisdiction o f New Guatemala. Kingdom o f Guatemala. 1657 Map. 13 Fig. 18th Century Commercial Trade Routes o f Colonial Central America xviii xix XX xxi 33 42 Map. 6 Fig. Audiencia de Guatemala. ca.LIST OF FIGURES Fig. The Kingdom of Guatemala: Principal Agricultural Products 43 Plan of Guatemala City. Audiencia de Guatemala. 1776 Alcaldia Mayor de San Salvador. Kingdom o f Guatemala. 11 Fig. . 1 Fig. 2 Fig. Kingdom o f Guatemala Map. 7 Fig. ca. 1786 Chains of Political Authority (Secular). ca. ca. 1671 Map. 1600 Map. Audiencia de Guatemala. 4 Fig. Kingdom o f Guatemala. 1690 (Cities) Map. 8 Fig. 12 Fig. 10 Fig. 1780s Map. 3 Fig. 1778 Road to Omoa. 1811 47 85 105 127 165 166 216 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Guatemala and Yucatan. ca. 9 Fig. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 Fig.

2: Alcaldes Mayores. 1774-1820 Chapter 3 Table 3. Kingdom o f Guatemala. before and after Intendancies of 1787 Table 4. 1781-1819 119 129 89 102 28 38 Table 3.2: Prices paid for Regimientos.1: Political Division of the Kingdom o f Guatemala in the 18th c.2: Kingdom o f Guatemala.1: Foundation o f the Principal Spanish Towns and Cities o f the Kingdom of Guatemala. with college degrees 250 160 192 149 xiii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.LIST OF TABLES Chapter 1 Table 1. ca. 1794 Chapter 2 Table 2. 1523-1821 Table 1. . 1790-1807 Chapter 5 Table 5. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1542-1786 Table 2. 1808-1821.1: Royal Income from different sources. Chimaltenango and Sacatepequez. 1800 Chapter 4 Table 4. Frequency o f Mails..1: Government o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala.2: Guatemalan Tax Collection. 1723-1725 Table 3.1: Mayors o f Guatemala City.3: Population & Racial Composition o f Selected Cities & Towns o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala.

Tegucigalpa. 1821-1822 280 Table 6.3: Institutions o f Republican Central America.1: Select Declarations o f Independence. 1809-1850 Table 7.6: Tegucigalpa Municipales in Executive Office.8: Provincials in the Guatemala City Town Council. Central America. 1821 337 Chapter 7 Table 7.1: Capitals. 1825-1850 Table 7.7: Guatemala City Municipales in Executive Office. 1823-1836 Table 7. 1821-1850 Table 7. . Central America. Sonsonate. Guatemala City Council. 1824-1850 416 415 402 411 411 414 356 358 368 372 xiv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1821-1850 Table 7. 1825-1842 Table 7.2: Juntas Gubernativas.9: Guatemala City Municipales who represented other districts in Congress Table 7. CentralAmerica.5: University Graduates and Lawyers.4: Promotions o f Communities. 1825-1842 Table 7.10: Municipales who were Presidents o f El Salvador Congresses.1821-1823 297 Table 6:3: City Councilors of Guatemala City.2: Principal Civil Wars. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.List of Tables (continued) Chapter 6 Table 6. 1821-1850 Table 7.

Kingdom o f Guatemala. ca. 17th and 18th centuries Appendix J: Sales o f Municipal Office. 1800 E 1: Distribution o f Population. 1800 G1: Commerce o f the Kingdom of Guatemala. 1778-1821 Appendix G: Commerce o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala. Kingdom o f Guatemala. 1654-1796 Appendix D: Distances between Towns and Cities. 1800 G2: Produce. 1776-1850 Appendix L: Town Councilors. Kingdom o f Guatemala. Regimientos Sencillos.LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Political & religious status: Spanish Cities. Asuncion de Guatemala. 1765 G3: Produce. Santiago and Asuncion de Guatemala. Central America. Kingdom o f Guatemala Appendix E: Population & Racial Composition o f Central America. 1524-1821 Appendix C: Political Divisions o f Central America. ca. 1750-1821 Appendix K: Town Councilors. 1700-1800 500 454 456 465 480 490 452 450 451 451 443 442 439 440 429 433 435 438 xv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. ca. 1787-1850 Appendix N: Creoles and Spaniards: Mayors and Syndics. 1523-1821 Appendix B: City Councils o f Central America. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1800 E3: Population & Racial Composition o f Select Cities & Towns. 1765 Appendix H: Price Comparison. 1787-1850 Appendix M: Town Councilors. ca. by Districts. 17th and 18th centimes Appendix I: Price Comparison. ca. Tegucigalpa. Sonsonate. Alcaldia Mayor. 1800 Appendix F: Jurisdiction & Population o f the Alcaldias Mayores o f Sonsonate and Tegucigalpa. Alcaldia Mayor. ca. Regimientos Dobles. Tegucigalpa. Kingdom o f Guatemala. Sonsonate. . 1778-1800 E2: Population o f Asuncion de Guatemala.

1839 & 1840 R6: Departments. 1825 R10: Territorial Division. State o f Guatemala. Departments. State o f Honduras. 1824 R8: Territorial Division. Diputaciones Provinciales (1810-1820) Appendix R: Political Divisions. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. State o f Honduras. Cortes Espanolas. State o f El Salvador.List of Appendices (continued) Appendix O: Creoles and Spaniards: Regidores Bienales. 1825: States. Honduras and El Salvador. State o f El Salvador. Guatemala City. 1825-1838 Appendix S: Important Political Events. 1784-1792 Appendix P: Mayors. Central American Federation and the States o f Guatemala. Central America. 1824: Cabeceras with juntas populares Federal presidential elections R4: Territorial Division. 1825-1855 R l: Federation. . Costa Rica. 1851 R7: Territorial Division. 1855 R9: Territorial Division. Towns & Villages R2: Federation. State o f Guatemala. 1831 (not implemented) R l 1: Territorial Division. State o f Guatemala. Asuncion de Guatemala. 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 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1825 R5: Territorial Division. 1776-1820 Appendix Q: Central American Deputies to Suprema Junta Central.

. Madrid Archivo Municipal de Sonsonate Archivo Municipal de Tegucigalpa Archivo Nacional de Honduras. 1680 University xvii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Tegucigalpa Article Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles Biblioteca Nacional. Paris Real Cedula Real Orden Recopilacion de leyes de los reinos de las Indias. MAE RC RO Recopilacion U. Leg. San Salvador Archivo Historico Aquidiocesano Francisco de Paula Garcia Pelaez de Guatemala. Guatemala City Archivo General de la Nacion. Archivo General de Indias.ABBREVIATIONS AGI AGCA AGN AHAG AHN AMS AMT ANH Art. BAE BN Exp. Sevilla Archivo General de Centroamerica. Guatemala City Archivo Historico Nacional. Madrid Expediente Legajo Archives du Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Historia general de los hechos de los Castellanos en las islas y tierrafirme del mar oceano (Courtesy. ca. 1600 Source: Antonio Herrera y Tordesillas. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1: Audiencia de Guatemala. Geography & Maps Division). . Library o f Congress. xviii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Fig.

1657). L'Amerique en plusieurs cartes (Paris. 2: Audiencia de Guatemala. Geography & Maps Division).Fig. 1657 Source: N. . xix Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Library of Congress. Sanson d 'Abbeville. Subject 7 (Courtesy.

Yucatan Conventus luridici Hispaniae Novae Pars Occidentulis et Guatimala Conventus luridicus. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (Berlin. Library o f Congress. 3: Yucatan and Guatemala. . Geography & Maps Division. XX Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. ca 1671 Source: Montanus. 1671) Courtesy.Fig.

reprinted by George Barrie and Sons. Recordacion Florida.” ivritltn in iht itvtnutnlk ttninrj.Fig. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Map of Central A m tric a . S*tnt 6* WJi Source: Francisco Fuentes y Guzman. 1905. 4: Kingdom o f Guatemala. xxi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. ca. 1690 F r$m Gntmnn't " HterJ/ua* / Y i r / i a . 11**10 .

and even this last took the zeal o f dissolution to constitute itself into a chaos without constitution and without known rule. Mexico and Brazil. Paraguay. Nicaragua and Costa Rica was not unique. As Sarmiento suggests. which proposed a new capital for the Federated States o f the Rio de la Plata. passed through the propensity to decompose into small fractions. Argentine statesman Domingo Faustino Sarmiento (1811-1888) observed that the South American republics have all. Central America has made a sovereign state of every village: the old Colombia yielded to three republics. This work examines the Central American case. . Argiropolis ([Buenos Aires]: Secretaria de Cultura de la Nacion. nor the reasons that allowed some but not all colonial territories to hold together.Introduction Writing at the midpoint o f the nineteenth century. dark independence without representation on the ladder o f nations.1 Central America did not. the process by which the Kingdom o f Guatemala became a weak country—the Central American Federation (1821-1839)— before succumbing after twenty years o f civil war into the republics o f Guatemala. by 1850. experienced the same internal strife. Uruguay and the Argentine Confederation. in fact. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.. Hopefully. 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. turn each village into a sovereign state.. attracted by an anarchical and rash aspiration to a ruinous. was originally published in 1850. A:Z Editora. more or less. if not the ultimate dismemberment of their colonial territory. Most South American countries suffered similar fragmentation. p. Honduras. one kingdom had splintered into five republics and a Mexican province. El Salvador. 79. the United Provinces o f the Rio de la Plata (Argentina) dissolved into Bolivia. 1994). and the exceptions. The text. but. answering the question o f why one apparently stable Spanish colony 1 Domingo Faustino Sarmiento. No one has yet adequately explained the origins or endemic nature o f violence in societies known for little full-scale rebellion under Spain’s rule.

pp.” Los Mayas antignos (Mexico: Colegio de Mexico. Silvio Zavala. 1-4.” Latin American Perspectives 19:2 (Spring 1992). 2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.” Journal o f Latin American Studies. 280-293. “Un viejo tema: el federalismo y el centralismo” Historia Mexicana 42:3 (1993). and Jose Agustin de la Puente Candamo. Bancroft and others. pp. in part due to a turn to social and cultural rather than political history. and Prescott. 10-43.was unable to maintain political unity after independence will have implications for the political processes that fragmented the others. Since Sarmiento’s time. Well-known proponents of partisan views include Lucas Alaman.2 Early twentiethcentury historians pointed out the Spanish “colonial heritage” o f a semi-feudal society. 1941). 79-119. Tozzer. “Historiografia de la Independencia del Peru. “The rule o f Agustin de Iturbide: a reappraisal. and particularly works by contemporaries to the events. 33-60. see for example. For an example o f historical writing on the impact o f liberals and conservatives. pp. pp. “The State. Charles A. pp. and Josefina Zoraida Vazquez. 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. Early works. unprepared for the freedoms and responsibilities o f democracy. Guardino and Charles Walker. 17:1 (May 1985). Hale for Mexico. and in part due to the daunting task of ' For a study of early North American Latin Americanists see Alfred M. See also Peter F." Bulletin o f Latin American Research 15:1 (1995). pp. Timothy E. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. "Introduction: The "Forgotten Century": Mexico. tended to look at divisions between elite factions in the new states. David Fowler has provided a recent historiography o f the Mexican case. “Stephens. in part due to events in Latin America that limited scholarly access to archives. 621-631. Anna. assigning blame to “conservatives” or “liberals” and focusing primarily on the political activities within a national capital. 1810-1910. Society and Politics in Peru and Mexico in the Late Colonial and Early Republican Periods.3 The “new history” o f the 1960s through 1980s produced a silence in the literature.''Revista de Historia de America 59 (1967). Jose Maria Luis Mora and Carlos Maria Bustamante for Mexico. historians have pursued the question o f why the majority o f Spain’s former colonies failed to consolidate their vast territories into extensive republics or federations after their independence in the early nineteenth century. .

could accomplish. 6 Roderick Barman. 1821-1853 (Westport. Peasants.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. “Introduction: The ‘Forgotten Century’: Mexico. 3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. David Fowler. PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. and Charles Walker. 1994). and Barbara Stein. and the formation o f Mexico's national state: Guerrero. Chambers.assessing a period with multiple leaders. 1999). Peter Guardino. Rodriguez O. For more recent adaptations of this approach. 1997). Will Fowler. 1780-1854 (University Park. 1780-1840 (Durham: Duke U. o f Califiomia Press. NC: Duke U. CT: Greenwood Press. . Press. Mexico in the age o f democratic revolutions. 1999). Press. ed. or caudillo.6 J See for example.” Bulletin o f Latin American Research (1991): 10(1): 3-22. 1988). for example. ed. Press. and looked sympathetically on attempts by provincial elites to influence the outcome o f political and military confrontations on a national stage. Brazil: The Forging o f a Nation.. s Brian Hamnett. pp. 1800-1857 (Stanford. Emilia Viotti da Costa.. From Two Republics to One Divided: Contradictions o f Postcolonial Nationmaking in Andean Peru (Durham. Jaime E. From Subjects to Citizens: Honor. “Benito Juarez. 1810-1910”. the works o f Hubert Bancroft. 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. “Inventing Mexico: Provincehood and Nationhood After Independence. multiple and shifting centers o f power.” and turned the historical gaze to the provinces that made creation o f a strong central state a task only a strong man.. Peru. 2000). 17501850 (Boulder: Lynne Rienner. 1970). see Mark Thumer.” Bulletin o f Latin American Research 15:1(1995). 1996). Smoldering Ashes: Cuzco and the creation o f Republican Peru. CA: Stanford U. 7-17. The Brazilian Empire: myths & histories (Chapel Hill: University o f North Carolina Press. 1798-1852 (Stanford: Stanford U. 1998).4 By the 1990s. and the Regional Politics of Oaxaca. Gender and Politics in Arequipa. These studies have complicated the understanding o f elite political ideas. Press. Timothy Anna. multiple and ephemeral governments and innumerable conflicts and policy changes. 4 See. The New Cultural Historv: essays (Berkeley: U. 1989). Lynn Hunt. see Stanley J. highlighted the struggles o f the lower classes to make their voices heard for and against policies emanating from distant capitals. Early Liberalism. Sarah C. Mexico in the age o f proposals. politics. For Peru. The Colonial Heritage o f Latin America: Essays on Economic Dependence in Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press.

1980) and Centroamerica. The overwhelming evidence o f wrangling among elites in the principal centers o f power. and Manuel Montiifar y Coronado. suggests other reasons for the reluctance o f scholars to focus solely on class tensions within the Central American Federation. perhaps. Berkeley. The Cadi: Experiment in Central America. which served as the underpinning o f much recent North American scholarship. Col. 1993). in part. 65-66. 65-66. Chapel Hill.7 Along with twentiethcentury studies. and Carlos Melendez.9 This Marxist approach.”8 A less common critique argued that conflict between “dominant classes” and the masses within the separate states provoked the fragmentation of the period. Col. Bosquejo historico de las revoluciones de Centroamerica. 1800-1840 (Guatemala: Editorial Universitaria de Guatemala 1986). 9 Julio Pinto Soria. NC: University o f North Carolina Press.The historiography on Central American independence has followed the general arc. 1982). Karnes. desde 1811 hasta 1834. Vol. (Guatemala: Ministerio de Educacion Publica. 1978). Raices historicas del estado en Centroamerica (Guatemala: Editorial Universitaria de Guatemala. Mario Rodriguez. 8 Thomas L. 1680-1840 (New York: Columbia University Press. however. La Independencia de Centroamerica (Madrid: Editorial MAPFRE. 2 vols. Historians contemporary to the events set the stage for their successors by blaming competing elite political groups and their partisan sniping. has found little favor among Central Americanists. 15 de Septiembre. The Failure o f Union: Central America 1824-1960. Miles Wortman. 15 de Septiembre (Guatemala: Ministerio de Educacion Publica. 1961). 1963(1832)). in recent years the kind o f local study undertaken by Peruvianists and Meixcanists has begun to appear in the ' Alejandro Marure. doomed the federal experiment and led to the “failure of union. CA: University of California Press. Vol. because o f the current political climate. Memorias para la Historia de la Revolucion de Centroamerica. de la colonia al Estado nacional. Government and Society in Central America. 1960 (1838)). 2 vols. although focus on provincial tensions in an attempt to explain the instability that prevailed in the 1820s and 1830s was a constant. . theme. they further argued that conflict o f provincial capitals and elites with those of the colonial and national capital. 4 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Guatemala City. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1808 to 1826. However. rather than intermittent.

” V Conferencia de Historia Centroamericana. “A Liberal Discipline: Inventing Nations in Guatemala and Costa Rica. Pesadilla Indigena: El Estado de Los Altos. 1 2 Victor Hugo Acuna. Hector Lindo-Fuentes and Lyle Gudmundson. 1998). rich and poor. Central America.1 0 For all their differences. 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.11 To date. 1821-1871 (Athens.. " Ralph Lee Woodward.literature. 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. Sueho Criollo. Stephen Palmer. Jr.1 2 Certainly. in the period. 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. 1870-1900. Columbia U. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Realidad Ladino. 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1990. 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. not the beginnings o f a new political order. Rafael Carrera and the emergence o f the Republic o f Guatemala. indigenous and white. GA: University of Georgia Press.. “Comunidad politica e identidad politica en Costa Rica entrel821 y 1870. San Salvador.” PhD Thesis. independence-era Central America suffered disputes in every province that would suggest fracture o f states rather than their construction. July 2000. 1993). and that nationalist ideology (“inventing nations”) within states emerged as a powerful discourse only in the 1870s. . San Salvador championed the establishment o f a bishopric to mark its province’s religious as well as secular independence from Guatemalan 1 0 Arturo Taracena Arriola. 1740-1850 (Guatemala: CIRMA. these arguments emphasized the breakdown o f political structures in the federal period o f 1821-1839. 1995). 1821-1871 (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabamaa Press.

Costa Rica. and numerous military conflicts. but the federation was already extinct.1 '* The federal capital moved from Guatemala City to Sonsonate. 1 4 In all. Yet at the end o f the 1840s. The Cadi: Experiment. 251-253). the federal congress decreed that each state could withdraw from the republic should it so desire. pp. 1735 wounded). 1998). Archivo General de Centro America (AGCA) Catalogue.14 By 1848. 1821-1850. The list of unsanctioned “uprisings” for Guatemala and El Salvador tops 65 for the twenty years following independence. initially an exceptionally harmonious province. 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. an important Indian city in Guatemala’s highlands. the period between 1821 and 1839 was characterized by unstable state and federal government. later experienced a civil war engaged by its four district capitals that led to the permanent relocation o f the state capital from Cartago. Although relatively few lives were lost in these engagements (7088 dead. At the same time. what emerged was not a state for each disgruntled municipal district. Motines and Asonadas. Rodriguez. 6 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.political control. 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 federation’s creation. peripatetic capitals. p. setting off the isthmus’ first civil war in 1824. Most o f these uprisings are associated with particular towns. 1740-1850 (Guatemala: CIRMA. to San Vicente. 11-50 (El Salvador). to San Salvador in search o f an acceptable home. Pesadilla Indigena: El Estado de Los Altos. Drawers 11-49 (Guatemala). . one could conclude. Bosquejo histdrico de las revoluciones de Centroamerica. Index. its colonial center. Also in the 1830s. with brief success in 1838-1839. to San Jose. Sueiio Criollo. Creole elites in Quezaltenango. Realidad Ladino. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. tried repeatedly to attract neighboring districts into a breakaway state. with Sarmiento. many non-combatants bore the consequences of requisitioning passing troops (Marure. Overall. 133157. that in Central America every village had indeed attempted to form a state. 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. Simply adding up the number and types of disputes.

Based on post-independence political activity. either at independence or with the failure o f union. Having recognized that political conflicts o f the period originated in contests between municipal elites and “divided the interior space o f each province. Cartago and numerous other towns and villages accepted their integration into larger political districts. engendered. in turn. Quezaltenango. Sonsonate. Not only the civil wars o f the period. in a period succeeding the supposed program o f centralization undertaken by the Bourbons in the 1780s. we must first stop assuming the existence o f the independent state as a pre-determined entity. to what can one attribute the origin. Tegucigalpa.into sovereign countries. First. what mechanisms led provinces to survive as states in a period when most were rocked by civil wars that were. Thus. demonstrate that the formation of political states was a process in which numerous claims were considered. but the behaviors of the early national and federal congresses. the failure o f federal unity is really only one o f two trends that historians should note in this period. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Such an explanation requires tackling two principal paradoxes o f the period. Historians must also propose to explain how weak and internally divided colonial provinces formed viable independent states. it is insufficient to take Central America’s state-formation to be nothing more than a formal renaming of Spanish provinces as unified national states.” we must now begin to ask how Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Granada. . strength and endurance of such municipal movements. which were legion and not limited to the years immediately following independence? Second. for the most part. However reluctantly. by secessionist movements led by their principal municipal districts? To address this paradox.

to foster elite and popular political organization through municipal institutions. . Indians. if uneven policy begun by Bourbon officials. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 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. with all o f the privileges and responsibilities that had previously been reserved for a dozen Spanish towns and cities. 8 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. economically and socially dependent hinterlands filled with smaller towns and their authorities—we continue a colonial history that put political legitimacy in the city o f the sixteenth-century conquest. Breaking down the provinces into their constituent units—the cities and their politically. expanded by the liberal Spanish parliament o f 1808-1814. 1820-1821) any town with 1000 residents was authorized a full-fledged city council.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.that division in the end brought about the sovereignty. Spaniards and their mixed-race descendants operated under one legal 1 5 Xiomara Avendano Rojas. and consolidated by the leaders of post-independence state and federal governments. the seats on the councils were opened to general election. Furthermore. “Procesos Electorates y Clase Politica en la Federacion de Centroamerica. Under the Spanish Constitution (1812-1814. to the period o f the Bourbon Reforms (1765-1807). In the Bourbon period. the city councils of Central America were encouraged to increase their revenues. For the first time. and limited council functions were extended to an increasing number of villages. We also find a long. of each federal state. rather than fragmentation.

whose deputies were elected by the principal municipal districts.system. and including men o f African origin among the citizens eligible to vote and serve in office. the Bourbons consolidated several municipal districts into intendancies under one governor. 9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Despite significant study of the role o f provincial strife in this period. 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. The establishment o f state and national congresses after independence replicated this trend. Is it any wonder. extending them to communities with as few as 200 residents. attempted to develop some form of provincial unity and cooperation. the same authorities created and supported provincial institutions and government. Concurrent with the municipal revival. In the Constitutional Period. 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. In the 1780s. After independence. the creation o f provincial deputations. . Colegio de Mexico. 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. 1994. and cannot be explained when only province-level processes are studied. In all periods. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. then. the Central American governments reinforced the role o f municipal councils. there is a curious silence in scholarship regarding the role o f the city in post-independence politics.” PhD thesis. If recent works on subaltern communities have returned directly and indirectly to the IS 10-1840.

Peasants. . 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. an institution of elites. until the early nineteenth century.village or municipio to discover political unity and the basis of activism and organization. From Two Republics to One Divided.16 Regardless of the cause. one would think that not just the power. the works of. had vanished with the rejection of Spain. A recent Argentine study has finally turned to the source of the “first sovereignties. of California Press. its reliance on published declarations authorities in the capital city. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. rather than on the records of a variety of city councils of a 1 6 See for example. and caused historians to sideline study of the city as a place of government and source of political power and identity.” the city councils. when looking at the literature of independence. politics and the formation o f Mexico's National State: Mark Thumer. 1995). 10 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1996). Yucatan's Maya Peasantry and the origins o f the Caste War (Austin: U. 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. There are indications that this misconception is about to be permanently shattered. and Terry Rugelcy. but the institutions of city government. state and national congresses in the constitutional governments of the early nineteenth century has masked the resurgence and extension of municipal government. Although this work highlights the importance of the city as the basis for the state is highlighted. Perhaps the proliferation of provincial. Florencia Mallon. little attention has focused on the parallel municipal organizations of big cities. Peasant and Nation: the making o f postcolonial Mexico and Peru (Berkeley: U. Peter Guardino. ofT exas Press.

City government was not a static institution. That is. Chiaramonte explores the role of the city in independence-era Argentina. within a greater government. or provinces. 1820-1821). however. is an analysis that integrates recent advances made in understanding political conflict in individual districts. that is. serving different functions and groups at different moments. paying particular attention to importance of municipal government to political ideas. Estados: Origenes de la Nacion Argentina (1800-1846) ([Buenos Aires]: Co. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.17 What is missing. “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. from its implantation in the sixteenth century. the city council. so the thesis has been organized into seven chronological chapters to mark the most important developments. Rather than presenting an institutional 1' The Argentine historian Jose Carlos Chiaramonte comes closest. however. Ciudades. . In his book. with an acknowledgment that focus on the institution that represents what different authors call municipal communities or towns.variety of types. development and function o f municipal government in the Kingdom of Guatemala (Central America). 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. 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. provincias. His book is strangely silent. This thesis takes that extra step. on the practical relations between city 11 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Editoria Espasa Calpe). from conquest to early national state formation. The first chapters. through its crown-sponsored revival and extension during the Bourbon Reforms (1759-1788) and constitutional monarchy (1808-1814. on the operation of city government outside the capital of Buenos Aires.

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 city’s 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


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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 Napoleon’s 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 region’s 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.


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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 cities—the 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


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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 definition—of 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


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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 Spain’s 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 groups—provincial elites, indigenous peasants, mestizo laborers or artisans—we 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.


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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 Mallon’s 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.


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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.


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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 Guatemala’s 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 victory’s spoils. Conquest without government was not a legitimate exercise. Soldiers’ camps


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles. 1524. who served as Santiago's skeletal town council (cabildo ). after “trasar y asentar una villa. In most other cities. the site was only “lent” to Alvarado’s troops by 1Antonio de Remesal. pp. the 1536 foundation of the Villa de San Pedro del Puerto de Cavallos (San Pedro Sula) by Pedro de Alvarado. unless otherwise noted.esario. Alvarado’s soldiers completed the exercise of foundation. and established residency in their new hometown by inscribing themselves as the original householders {vecinos) o f the community. Vol.1 Alvarado did not wait for very long before consolidating his political authority. including a town constable. Three days of celebration followed.. figuratively exchanging sword for ploughshare. Translations are mine. After hearing mass said by the army’s chaplain. July 25. para mejor ftmdai^ion. 81-83. on the July 29. to legitimize and confirm battle results. . Demas desto. governor and men solemnly called on the apostle Santiago. and dedicated their church to him. for example. the conquistador or council also assigned the labor of the conquered Indian populations to the new vecinos . Chapters 2 & 3. ed. Carmelo Saenz de Santa Maria.2 In Santiago however. he ordered his men into battle formation to the sounds o f fifes and drums.had to be replaced with official settlements and their officials. Historia General de las Indias Occidentales y particular de la Gobemacion de Chiapay Guatemala. A los quales luego les repartio los yndios de la comarca. 1964-1966).. poblamiento y sustentacion de la Villa y vezinos della. * See. harquebuses and muskets. proveyo de mas de dozientos yndios de sus 23 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.. Book 1. Then. In many cases. On the Monday following the initial construction. who. 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. 175 (Madrid: Ediciones Atlas. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Alvarado named the first mayors and aldermen. On the same poblo de los vezinos que hera/ ne<. bestowed his name on the new city.

Leyva. however. Recordacion Florida. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and they are adorned not only with illustrious houses. and that if the physical trappings o f such government could be postponed. Central America. The contemporary understanding o f the role o f the city is well captured by Guatemalan historian Francisco Fuentes y Guzman (1612-1696)..” and aspirant to a Crown appointment as Guatemala’s official historian. like the rest o f Spain’s conquered territories in the Old and New Worlds. until the city relocated to its first permanent home in a neighboring valley. Carmelo Saenz de Santa Maria. 1969-1972). but with venerable and respectable ecclesiastic and secular tribunals. for they are the center for establishing the primary armed forces and political governm ent. Fuentes y Guzman wrote that [cjities that are established and founded are the security and constancy of conquered kingdoms. p. 3 Remesal. 21 de diciembre de 1536” in AGI Guatemala 44. “my Cabildo. the principal nerve that keeps and nourishes monarchies.. 4 Francisco Antonio de Fuentes y Guzman.3 The delay. Ediciones Atlas. 159. ed. Printed in Hector M.. their principal heads. 230. and. 83. p.. more. Obras Historicas de Francisco Antonio de Fuentes y Guzman. would be first and foremost a network o f self-governing cities. the cult o f God is resplendent with sumptuous and rich temples. city councilor and organizer o f the municipal archives o f Santiago. legitimate government meant establishing cities. pp. Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles. Historia General. Documentos Coloniales de Honduras (Tegucigalpa: Centro de Publicaciones Obispado de Choluteca.” “Relacion hecha por el Cabildo de Gracias a Dios sobre lo sucedido en la provincia de Higueras y Honduras... happily plays. important and renowned. 1-7. 1991). ed. (Madrid. emphasizes that for the Spanish o f the sixteenth century. descendant o f conquerors. Vol. Book 5.. . In the cities.4 esclavos a hazer las labrantas para senbrar mayz. Chapter 4. 24 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. in them commerce. the legal and political foundations could not. in Fuentes y Guzman.the native residents o f an existing settlement. and the procedure o f land distribution was postponed for three years.

25 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner..n.Civil. establishing autonomous Christian city-states responsible directly to the monarch and with the responsibility o f representing their community in the Spanish Cortes. Title 4. however. was. that in medieval Spain in the privileges and fueros granted by the crown to reconquista towns. 92-94. as well as commerce. The term was in Central America from the moment of foundation of Santiago. However. Coleccion de Fueros Municipales y Cartas Pueblas.7 5 Juan de Solorzano (1575-1655) in his Politica Indiana. ed. executive and judicial attributes to govern land and people. villas and places (lugares) o f Spaniards as Republicas or poblaciones. rights and privileges to the settlers who repopulated territories conquered from the Muslims. Law 1. town or village with its town council (concejo or cabildo). 1990).. 1805-1829). refers to the Republica that “the justicias. It is interesting to note. Corona de Aragon v Navarra. Title. Coleccion de Fueros Municipales y Cartas Pueblas de las (sic) reinos de Castilla. so there was no standardized body o f law relating to city government. passim. 1977). Leon. Chapter 1. pp. ' Munoz y Torrero. (Valladolid: Lex Nova. military and ecclesiastic government. the 1847 collection of numeros royal grants from 900 to 1250. all operated from a municipal base. in the language o f the times. referred to the cities. ed. . 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. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.6 Each city had its own royal charter and regulations. A city. the word republic was not used. a republic (republica ) and had the requisite legislative. Book 5. 2. See for example.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. Tomas Munoz y Torrero. as had happened in each region and each phase of the reconquest. the political system created was municipal. In the New World. 1516-1700 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.]. Book 7 o f the Novisima Recopilacion de las Leyes de Espana (Madrid: [s.

economic and political organization and the capitals around which both colonial and independent Central America would organize.1) Achieving far more than legal justification for the domination o f several Indian kingdoms. while Francisco Montejo conquered the Yucatan peninsula and Chiapas. Ciudad Real (1528) and Comayagua (1540)—became secular and ecclesiastical capitals of the provinces o f 26 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. .A Municipal Conquest Central America experienced its ‘municipal conquest’ in the early sixteenth century. Pedro Alvarado. 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. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. marched. Pedrarias Davila (Pedro Arias de Avila) established his group of conquistadores in Nicaragua. fought. as one conquistador after another sailed. 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. The conquistador capitals o f this period—Santiago (1524). founded a city to consolidate victory and then repeated the exercise. and brought most o f what constitutes the modem republics o f Guatemala and El Salvador under Spanish control between 1524 and 1536. Leon (1523). this extended ‘municipal conquest’ established the bases for the region’s territorial. his brothers and their expedition conquered the Quiche and Kakchiquel kingdoms. (See Table 1.

1500-1800 (Guatemala: Editorial Piedra Santa. it took a second wave of settlers to consolidate an early conquest with a durable city foundation. According to Juarros. Domingo Juarros. the Kingdom o f Guatemala. Costa Rica was conquered in 1522. p. 315. Chiapas and Comayagua (Honduras). only Costa Rica’s Cartago (1565) owes its founding not to the initial conquest but to later exploration. 1981). Nicaragua. in 1542. Compendio de la Historia del Reino de Guatemala. 27 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 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). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 Located in an area without densely settled Indian populations or metal riches.Guatemala. Santiago de Cartago owed its title of city to settlement forty years later. which were joined by the Spanish crown into one politico-administrative district. The conquest gave Central America its capitals. However. . Information on this and other foundings comes primarily from the work of nineteenth-century Guatemalan historian.8 O f the major towns.

rcpopulated 1789. villa o f mulatto carpintcrs. Compendio. 40 pueblos. 2 villas. 50 pueblos in 11 parishes (1526 rder/ 1528 founding) Capital o f Partido in AM S Salvador: 2 villas. from 1787. M-Mazariegos. founded as S. 1643. valles & haciendas. o f partido and intendcncy. in 7 parishes Capital o f Partido in AM S Salvador. Bemabe Fernandez Hernandez. Titulos de Indias . 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. Gbno o f Honduras (1536-1542). 1“ ayuntamiento: 1805 Capital o f Alcaldia Mayor (1552-1821) Port city (Acajutla). 283. D. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.: 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). o f 3 villas .htm 28 Reproduced with permission of the copyright 18011811. 6 pueblos.1: Foundation of the Principal Spanish Towns and Cities o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala. D = Domincan. 1565 1778 S Miguel de la Frontera San Vicente de Austria. Gbno.Davila. Middle American Governors.Table 1. 56 pueblos. 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. 1799. then Partido. o f intendancy & partido (1787-). de la Cueva (or lieutenants) Sources: Juarros. o f Nicaragua: de 1 villa & 17 pueblos Capital de Partido in Gbno. Ricardo Magdaleno. 6 lugares de ladinos. many valles and haciendas Capital de Partido. partido and Intendancy (17871821). w families fm Galicia & Canaries Capital. 1552 1528 M 1565 ca. Truxillo (1789): Gonzalez. port Title o f villa Capital o f Gobcmacion (1565?-1821). 10 parishes Port. 13 minerales. Mo-Montejo. 1 villa and 12 pueblos. 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. . to 1753: 76 pueblos de indios Capital o f Alcaldia mayor. passim. Founded on orders by Cortes. valles & haciendas. o f Nicaragua: 1 villa and 5 pueblos Capital o f Partido. AGI Guatemala 453.hondudata. Sacatepcquez. de Ios Confines (1542-1549) Capital o f Gobiemo (-1786). Aud. 1523-1821________________________ Municipality Guatemala City 1524-1776: Santiago 1776. of Partido & Intendancy (1786-1821).Chaves. abandoned after Dutch pirate attack. 1812-1821): villa. El Reino de Guatemala durante el gobiemo de Antonio Gonzalez Saravia. then AM (1580-1788. Pedro Puerto Caballos Capital AM. 1530 (1809) D 1534 A 1783 ca. M = Mercedarian. SJDD = San Juan de Dios Conquistadores: A-AIvarado. Taplin. Ch. 20 parishes Capital o f Alcaldia Mayor (1542-1786).town council Capital o f Corregimiento (1523-1821) . 17 pueblos de indios. Rivas title. with haciendas and obrajes Capital o f Gobcmacion (15497-1787). Choluteca: www. p. passim. 5 parishes. passim . 10 pueblos Monasteries: F = Franciscan. Location moved in 1776 after an earthquake. 21 pueblos in 8 parishes Capital o f Alcaldia Mayor (AM) (1529-1786).

1989). These towns became capitals (cabeceras) o f smaller districts— alcaldias mayores and partidos —within the larger areas controlled by each conquistador. Smith. see Robert S. For a thorough treatment of indigo production and commerce. and later intendancy of San Salvador.. founded in 1658 at a mid-way point between San Salvador and Guatemala City. These two towns anchored what would become the province. ed. and to defend a territory’s far reaches from the predations o f rival groups o f conquistadors. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. For example. later Crownappointed Spanish governors and bishops. established established the jurisdiction o f what would become the province. the Alvarado contingent.” but also the provincial organization o f the Kingdom developed from the satellite towns (villas) founded by the conquistadors. Granada (1523) and Nueva Segovia (ca. 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. 141-175. along with the town o f San Vicente. Pedrarias Davila. Juarros. CR]: Banco Centroamericano de Integracion Economica. These satellite towns were founded by small groups of settlers dispatched from the first cities to ensure the submission o f indigenous groups.” in Luis Rene Caceres.Not only the capitals came from the process o f “fight and found. whose tendency to rebel threatened the early Spanish settlements. 1530). responding to Indian uprisings in the Cuscatlan district. 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).9 Similarly. Compendio . Lecturas de Historia de Centroamerica ([San Jose. p. pp. “Produccion y comercio de anil en la Guatemala colonial. . 29 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 269. and. 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).

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. It also produced economic development that favored the western half o f the isthmus.10 Truxillo (1524-1646). Entrepots for trade and without a significant or permanent Spanish population. and. p. pp. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. but also were where the Indian peoples lived. much later. 36. Compendio .As is clear from Maps 1 through 6. . in whose conquest the indefatigable Alvarado also took part. A fire in 1564 destroyed that city’s act o f foundation. 267. Compendio. 1 1 Juarros. 91-96. Most were in the north and favored the growth o f Santiago as commercial center: San Pedro Sula. Lowland towns on the Caribbean shore were limited to ports and military outposts meant to trade with Spain and deter British incursions. the fortress o f Omoa (1740). p. For a first-person account of a Dutch pirate’s predations in the Caribbean. suggesting long-standing connections. (1536). with provinces and districts forming around the principle Spanish settlements. Santo Tomas (1604) and Golfo Dulce (1674).1 1 1 0 The 1536 act of incorporation of San Pedro de Puerto de Caballos by Pedro de Alvarado. they had little political or religious clout within the system. there was only the port o f San Juan. These highland districts became centers for internal trade o f the agricultural and industrial products of the isthmus. Although also founded at the time o f conquest. 30 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. For the mountain highlands were not only where most Spanish cities flourished. by the seventeenth century it was often controlled by British privateers. they later often became depopulated because of piracy and a difficult climate. In the south. Santiago's vecinos had encomiendas of Indians in the Sonsonate district. on the Caribbean coast o f Nicaragua. Central America's municipal conquest permanently shaped territorial organization of the isthmus. JuarTos. Apuntamientos para una historia colonial de Tegucigalpa y su alcaldia mayor (Tegucigalpa: Editorial Universitaria. 1982). along with the list of repartimientos of Indian villages has been printed in Mario Felipe Martinez Castillo.

these highland and lowland towns (or republics) filled in the conquered territory. Yet. that show the towns and cities in relation to their provinces. and served as the Pacific outlet for the Nicaraguan district. 31 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. communication among the American territories led to development o f two ports that serviced the legal and illegal trade that exchanged indigo. NM: Rio Grande Press. where Spanish maps were dotted with hundreds o f cities.On the Pacific Coast. and cities. See. Acajutla was a way station managed from the nearby town o f Sonsonate (1552). First Publish'd in 1784 (Glorieta. sugar. as it was only 4 leagues from provincial capital Leon. and provided the republic o f cities that was the backbone o f the Spanish political and economic network in Central America.1 2 Together. with bishoprics distinguished by the addition o f a distinctive church building to the group. Realejo (1534) developed a shipbuilding industry in the sixteenth century. mountains. u Juarros. . from 1657. A cluster o f houses represented towns or cities. 1992). set the general limits and affiliations o f the provinces o f the isthmus. for examples. tobacco and silver for wines from Peru and Asian goods imported from Mexico. Compendio. cacao. As was traditional with contemporary Spanish map-making. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. towns and villages. three seventeenth-century maps—one by Fuentes y Guzman—that emphasize the locations o f city settlements. only the dozen or so conquest towns o f Central America found their see John Esquemeling. p. cartographers represented only key features on land— rivers. 21. and a fourth. The Buccaneers o f America.

. the city-based nature o f political territory is equally clear. was clear: cities were not only the places where civilized people lived. no matter how important. 1 3 For examples o f maps o f sixteenth and seventeenth century Spain.13 If there were provinces—and there were dozens. as we shall see below— it was rare for them to be located at a point on the map. uneven territories. In a rare instance o f an eighteenth-century map distinguishing among the different districts o f the Kingdom of Guatemala. did not. In a map whose borders are too regular to reflect the reality o f the mountainous. They were the only places he could see ahead o f time on the map. The representation. see the Osher Map Collection at the University o f Southern Maine.way onto the maps. one can see each province was named for the city whose seat was its capital (Figure 5). fixed neither to a territory nor a series o f towns (see Figures 1-4). instead. which includes sixteenty-century maps by Girolamo Ruscelli and Hessel Gerritsz. An immigrant or visitor was encouraged to head to one o f the limited number of Spanish communities to establish himself. while Indian villages. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. then. they were the places that mattered politically. province names floated above an area. 32 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.

Archivo General de Indias) 33 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Guatemala 309 (Courtesy. . Mapas y Pianos. Eighteenth Century Source: AGI. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Figure 5: Audiencia de Guatemala.

notably the viceroyalties o f New Spain (Mexico) and Peru. u Lyle McAlister. pp. leading to location of towns to favor export and imports (i. Lastly. than between the cities themselves. which led to a significant number of peripatetic capitals. Historian Lyle Me Alistair has argued that there were four principal characteristics o f the “urbanization” o f conquest. Central America’s municipal development did not share these characteristics. where privileges were dispensed by imperial authorities. However. The first three were the haphazard and unstable nature of the earliest cities. 1492-1700 (Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press. compared to the extensive viceroyalties o f Mexico and Peru to the north and south. 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. . Further reproduction prohibited without permission. some of the findings based on studies o f the larger districts o f Spanish America.e.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.14 In part because o f its fairly compact extension. 150-151. on the Caribbean Coast) and closer contacts between these ‘isolated’ cities and Spain. 34 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. do not hold up in the case o f Central America. 1984). dispersal and isolation o f the centers o f population to places where labor supplies were available. Spain and Portugal in the New World. and in part because o f the terrain. McAlistair argued that the Spanish cities looked outward to major administrative centers.

. its home for over two hundred years. Catholic Colonialism: a parish history o f Guatemala. Alvarado’s ally against the Quiche Maya. the new city was considered a continuation o f the old. a devastating flood that killed the only woman governor o f the colony. prompted them to repeat the exercise. pp. For the discussions on moving the capital. as he stated. and Maria del Carmen Deola de Giron. which killed Alvarado’s widow and interim governor Beatriz de la Cueva. on the site on which to trace out and build their city. Three years later. the battles won. see the town council acts o f 1527 in Carmelo Saenz de Santa Maria. but their foundation. Pedro de Alvarado to Heman Cortes. ed. Even after two hundred years. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1524-1821 (New York: Cambridge University Press. cited in AdriaanVan Oss. The city council’s remove to a temporary home at the new site in 1776 that confirmed the successful establishment of Nueva Guatemala de la Asuncion (Guatemala City). was anything but “haphazard and unstable. the principle remained valid. just as 1 5 Alvarado’s choice had fallen on the fortress of Iximche. 35 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. did relocate in the initial years. In 1527. After a flood in 1541. 10-11. If the physical site o f Santiago changed.15 Further. like Santiago. Fifteen years later. 1986).” Santiago moved once because its initial site was known to be temporary from the start. each move reflected the suppleness o f the city as both political and physical body: the physical location could shift without undermining political organization. nor did the city’s name. 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.Some cities. the permanent settlement of Santiago de los Caballeros was founded in the Kaqchiquel valley of Almolonga. Santiago’s vecinos visited several different sites and voted. because it was “the center of all the country" with “more and better arrangements” to consolidate the conquest. the capital m oved to the site o f the present-day Antigua. as seen above. After a 1773 earthquake led to a difficult and contested decision to abandon Santiago. after extensive discussion. Guatemala. the government and vecinos did not. it was also the capital of the Kaqchiquels.

Chiapas. 1 0 For a detailed presentation o f the 1776 move of the capital and the tensions beween captain general and cabildo. most o f these towns and cities became capitals o f provinces or districts. It took a full decade to build the physical plant o f the transferred city and convince residents. see Pedro Perez Valenzuela. However. “many die. 1' Comayagua became a city in 1557 and Chiapas in 1565. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. . like San Salvador. 263. pp. Historia general . per royal decree. an increase in status that reflected the increased value of their products and jurisdictions. and the city’s protestations of cooperation and loyalty of 9 October of the same year. pp. 36 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. including a royal order o f 17 May 1776 expressing the king's displeasure with the cabildo’s resistance to the move. but also had a climate better than several Honduran coastal towns where. this “ruralization” did not reflect poor planning on the part o f the conquistadors. afio de 1555” in Martinez Castillo. Original documents. San Salvador received its title from the king in either 1543 or 1545. and Comayagua were rapidly promoted from villa to ciudad. or Remesal. Instead. Several. 21.”18 Some cities did become depopulated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when even the more productive cities experienced urban flight. the bureaucracy and the church o f the former capital. can be found in AGI Guatemala 534.17 Comayagua. 83-86. called Antigua. it derived directly from an economic paleography. 1934).the foundation o f a council had provided legitimacy to the foundation o f Santiago. 1991). 97-98. to follow their government.1 6 Whether they moved or not. and the astute decisions o f their founders to place them in economically and politically viable locations. for example. La nueva Guatemala de la Asuncion (Guatemala: Ministerio de Educacion Publica. Juarros cites two different dates in his Compendio pp. 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. Comayagua’s cabildo wrote simply in 1555. 1 8 “Informe de Cabildo de Comayagua. Libro Viejo de la Fundacion de Guatemala (Guatemala: Academia de Geografla e Historia de Guatemala. 12-20. Apuntamientos. pp.

El Regimen Colonial (1524-1570). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in Julio Pinto Soria. and many vecinos didn't build houses in the new provincial capital. “Economia y Sociedad en Centroamerica (1540-1680)”. However. see AGCA A3.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. only 6 were further than 200 leagues. .1 9 Compared to modem times the Spanish cities of Central America were isolated and separate. was 30 days or less. 2. Exp. O f the 43 places listed.8. Fonseca argues that in the case of Nicaraguan cities Leon and Granada. had only 39 of 200 %-ecinos in residence 1679 because pirate attacks made rural living a more prudent choice. it still took four months for messages to travel from the capital to Costa Rica and back with the official mail. f 4. 20 For a complete list o f distances from the capital to the cities and cabecera. pp.2 1 1 9 For a discussion of the process o f ‘ruralization’ in the Kingdom o f Guatemala see Fonseca. A1. when the economy revived in the eighteenth century. 2603.' de partido o f the Kingdom of Guatemala in 1793.25 Leg. 140-142. Prepared after deliberation and 37 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. v. Granada. and 9 were under 50 leagues. on the other hand. However. (Madrid: FLACSO. Leon changed sites after a 1610 earthquake.20 The fastest turnaround for correspondence with Spain was close to ten times longer. ed. with a turnaround time that. 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. Granada and other cities to live on their inland farms. 1993). 21389. Fully half were less than 100 leagues from the capital. 2 1 Although correspondence could reach Spain in two months.. it was not the general crisis but specific local factors that precipitated the abandonment o f urban living. including a break to send cordilleras through the dependent villages and to compose answers. Even with a regular mail system established in the 1790s. these same towns resumed their former status. most of the cities sent and received mail to other cities less than 100 leagues distant. 10 between 100 and 150 leagues distant. it more often took four to six months for government correspondence to reach its destination in the Peninsula. Historia General de Centroamerica .

or slung in a sack shot across the river. appeals o f local decisions often took two to three years to resolve. 38 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. or its most important local trading partner. Exp.24 So. and eight days for the decision to reach Sonsonate.. For this reason. 2 -1 In an 1816 complaint o f the mayors of Sonsonate about restrictions placed on their jursdiction by the alcalde mayor. in a few days’ journey or less. The bishop visited densely populated areas nearest the capital. 23 Adriaan Van Oss.2: Kingdom of Guatemala. Thirty-nine routes suffered loose rocks or landslides. & Emplazamientos y recepciones de Prueba de todas las provincias del reino. 2603.. three weeks for the complaint to be resolved. Juan Hurtado.. most Spanish towns and cities could reach the capital. in another 34. Robert J. quantified archbishop Cortes y Larraz’ complaints o f his visit to the diocese o f Guatemala and San Salvador in the 1760s. Colonial Cities: essays on urbanism in a colonial context (Boston: M Nijoff. most responses did not arrive in the Kingdom o f Guatemala before at least a year had passed. while the authorization. Telkamp. more than half (73) included violent climbs or descents: 65 mentioned rivers crossed by wading.. either marshes or heavy brush and woods impeded progress. “The Autarkic Colonial Cities o f Central America” in eds. 21389.8/A1.. sitting on a chair carried by wading Indians.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. Nueva Guatemala. O f 143 different overland trajectories. Estado o razon. Mariano Bujons. 12. 1793. 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. 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. it took less than a week for the complaint to travel to the Kingdom capital. Frequency of Mails. f 4. Pedro Gomez de la Pena.. " AGCA A3. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1985). Ross and Gerard J. it is hard to imagine the rest o f the provinces boasted better conditions.25 Leg. canoe.. 23 April 1794. .

siempre han exercido los Alcaldes Ordin. Intento quartar la Jurisdiccion q. As various authors show. 39 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. and Texuantepec. 151. Tuxtla. Real. Sonsonate. Spain and Portugal in the New World. Islands. 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. Mail took 13 days to reach Oaxaca from Guatemala. Chiapas’ mail was likely slow because of the need to coordinate with Oaxaca. AHN Consejos 20983. stopping in Totonicapan.A. Alcaldes Ordinarios. to Captain General. 20 January 1816. These papers provide insight both into the role o f the syndic as city lawyer and conscience. ordered a second mail run each month. pirate raids and a crisis in Spanish shipping. Exp. the commerce o f the Kingdom of Guatemala for much o f this period was primarily regional. Ciudad Real—grew and flourished while the coastal cities o f Gracias a Dios. due to a deadly climate. Mr.. Comitan. AGCA A1 Leg. 55306. AMS. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Truxillo. natural barriers. Quezaltenango. and competition did not in the case o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala lead to external orientation. whence the kingdom received most mail from the “Metropolis. Distance. Granada and Realejo faltered. San Salvador. Antonio Arroyave to Alcaldes Ordinarios o f Sonsonate. Captain General Antonio Gonzalez M. Tegucigalpa. a developed internal communications network had greater importance. The towns in the densely populated Indian highlands— Santiago. 24 January 1816 and 14 February 1816. y Mexican Kingdom. As part o f a court case against Guatemala City in 1803.s de este N. syndic Sebastian Melon compiled his 37 policy papers into a testimonial.urban centers o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala fostered communication and trade with Spain. In 1805. Ciudad. 30 April 1805 ' 5 Lyle McAlaistair." Yet. or “an inordinate population concentration in a few administrative centers long after Spanish domination o f the region ended. Guatemala. Caja 1810-21/3. . the abuses of power that could exist in a council. and the relations between the Guatemala council. 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. captain general and audiencia.. f 74. Ordenes y Comunicaciones.”25 Most o f the isthmus’ Atlantic and Pacific ports were in decay or abandoned in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. p. Despachos. Sobre que el Ale. de 4 leguas en contomo. isolation and instability. Pieza 20. 6091. Cuademo de Providencias.

Tegucigalpa produced little more silver than that necessary to support this economy. Arevalo.26 More compact than most o f Spain’s American territories. cotton and woven fabrics. and the Izalco region o f Salvador (cacao) and San Salvador and San Miguel (indigo). 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. and the southern group that included part o f Honduras. 27 For discussion o f the 17th century economy of the Kingdom o f Guatemala and its economic crisis. cattle. The rest o f the provinces produced for internal consumption and surplus trade with nearby Mexican and Peruvian provinces: grains. the city produced artisanal goods. . Despite production of export crops in Soconusco.. see Murdo Macleod.. attributed to Spanish merchant Juan de Zavala (1753-1800). 1520-1720 (Guatemala: Editorial Piedra Santa. Costa Rica. “Economia y Sociedad. the Kingdom’s economy was reasonably selfsufficient. pp. see. 1811).27 A limited contraband trade with the British (cheap textiles). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Costa Rica and Caribbean and Peruvian trade and contraband (see Figures 6 and 7).and was conducted between and among the principal urban centers o f the isthmus and their American neighbors. which stretched from Tegucigalpa through San Salvador and Chiapas to Oaxaca. 1990). Peru (wine) and Mexico (various goods) supplemented what could not be produced locally or profitably traded with Spain. Nicaragua.” in Julio Pinto 40 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. the Kingdom o f Guatemala had two principal trading circuits: the northern trade sector. also in Melendez. The valley o f Guatemala specialized in wheat and sugarcane. and Elizabeth Fonseca Corrales. Historia socio-economica de la America Central espanola. and Veracruz in New Spain. Apuntamientos sobre la agricultura y comercio del Reyno de Guatemala (Guatemala: M. For more detailed discussion of the networks o f trade. Textos Fundamentales. For most o f the Spanish period. Antonio Larrazabal. 70-82.

.setting o f market days so that it could function. 1993). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ed. 41 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Soria. 137-149. 2. v. pp.. not on rejection o f local ties for commerce. Historia General de Centroamerica. more than it demanded frequent overseas contact. El Regimen Colonial (1524-1570) (Madrid: FLACSO. The internal economy developed in the Kingdom o f Guatemala favored regionalization that centered on micro-economies.

6. 42 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. I ' r i Source: Julio Pinto Soria. 2.■j jn \..Figure 6: Commercial Trade Routes o f Colonial Central America < u $ i 5 vp y k\ i ^ if!! t s • * . Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2. ed. . v. Historia General de Centroamerica.»% i * : '* ./ n * . 1993). El Regimen Colonial (1524-1570) (Madrid: FLACSO.

ed.Figure 7: Principal Agricultural Products. v.2. 1993). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Historia General de Centroamerica.. . El Regimen Colonial (1524-1570) (Madrid: FLACSO. Kingdom o f Guatemala c\j <\J c\j m ro in ro ^ m id m Source: Julio Pinto Soria. 43 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 2. Figure 4.

with their own trade and power networks.Certainly. densely populated center and city limits with the division between urban sprawl and the first signs o f some sort o f open space. political and economic resources. City Space The above discussion explains the municipal organization that underlay all political and territorial organization that followed the conquest o f Central America. because the sole university was in their city. 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. the capital Santiago. anxious to skim some of that power and profit for themselves. this administrative importance did not have the same weight as it might have had the economy. in fact. the Kingdom o f Guatemala had an administrative center. However. . Guatemala’s elites had educational advantages over the rest o f the audiencia . There was inequality: capital Santiago had more than its “fair” share of human. with an almost exclusive stranglehold on the export economy that increased during the eighteenth century. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. since most privileges and immunities were dispensed directly by the monarch. focused primarily on the imports and exports whose official trade the capital’s merchants controlled. However. But spread throughout the isthmus were other regional centers. The maps above would tend to support a mental image 44 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. or had there not been important contraband carried out on both coasts. despite some Bourbon efforts to strengthen provincial autonomy. and more access to interim governorships and other appointments in the captain general’s gift.

45 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. or pueblos. the Spanish city was an urban center.29 In the Central American case. Spanish. It was traditional for a republica to include large swathes o f land. and aldeas. and a new city’s land claims were not to infringe on those o f its nearest neighbor. Although in some cases further settlement led to reduction o f the initial boundaries. . To a large extent. mulatto and mestizo populations lived unregulated by official administration. to ranches (haciendas). a city’s limits were defined in relation with those o f its neighbors. 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. it was a series o f often-abutting provinces. in practice. see Chapter 2. According to Castilian law.28 However. Such settlements ranged from structured Indian villages. or casco. throughout the colonial period. to ensure that every last square inch of countryside pertained to a legitimate community. with a significant ‘hinterland’ (termino) that stretched for many leagues and included numerous pockets o f human settlement. or cabeceras. there were no pre-existing Spanish towns prior to the advent o f the conquistadors of the 1520s. The republic of cities was more than just a series o f connected urban centers. focusing on the urban side of city life and city government. mines (minas). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. historians have applied these same criteria to the study o f colonial Spanish American cities.of a city reduced to an urban center. lugares and valles (other forms o f rural Spanish settlement) in which Indian. Central America’s conquest :s For more on the responsibilities and activities of city government.

Book 3 as suiting “public utility” (por convenir a la utilidad publica). the Crown succeeded in reducing its reach to a still-important area of 11 leagues. el cual dicho sitio es termino de la provincia de Guatemala. Impreso. AGI 533. and reconfirmed against audiencia appeals in 1604 and 1607. GC. “asiento y pueblo en este sitio la ciudad de Santiago. this jurisdiction was codified into the Recopilacion de Leyes de Indias. for 58 leagues. El Ayuntamiento colonial de la Ciudad de Guatemala (Guatemala: Editorial Universitaria. Chapter 1.” for a lucid introduction to the process o f town incorporation in sixteenth-century Castile. Libro Viejo. 1961). 30. See Helen Nader’s Liberty in Absolutist Spain . jl Emesto Chinchilla Aguilar. 46 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Title 2. this city originally governed over 58 leagues of mountain and coastal territory. p. p. [1760s?]. 39. stated that Santiago was the termino of the province o f Guatemala.30 In 1573. for example. Guatemala City’s eleven league jurisdiction was confirmed by the crown in a royal cedula o f 1573.municipalities controlled significant territories. “The Constitution of Land and Council. as Law 64. In 1680. Alvarado states. 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.” Act o f 22 November 1527. Pedro de Alvarado. 0 In the act o f foundation. .

. 47 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1776 Source: AGI. Guatemala 220 (Courtesy. Archivo General de Indias). Mapas y Pianos.Figure 8: Plan of New Guatemala City.

35 Law 6. 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. and a church. in Salvador. Title 8. and not harm Indian villages. Real Cedula de 3 September 1783. Villa or Settlement (Lugar) o f Spaniards. and Tegucigalpa. ’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. Title 5 (Felipe II (1527-1598). except in cases when the incorporation o f new Spanish towns or cities reflected 32 AGI Guatemala 572. Law 3. ladino. indigo workshops. later. 48 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Recopilacion. San Miguel.If Santiago's initial jurisdiction was unusually extensive. the size o f the size o f each city’s hinterland made the colonial Spanish city more o f a province than a simple urban center. 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. O f these. The four leagues had to be at least five leagues from any extant City. Ordenanza 88. Consulta del ayuntamiento de Granada. Pedro Cortes y Larraz. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24 April 1785. Descripcion geografico-moral de la Didcesis de Goathemala (Guatemala: Sociedad de Geografia e Historia de Guatemala. pardo and mulato villages and settlements. a priest. each had 40-league jurisdictions. 1958).32 San Vicente’s 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. . Laws subsequent to the conquest that established municipal jurisdiction at a reasonably manageable 4 square leagues35 were rarely invoked in early colonial Central America. it was far from the only Central American city with an outrageous territorial footprint. Book 4. San Salvador. or households.33 Each of these enormous jurisdictions included numerous Indian and. mestizo. sugar mills. Book 4. and mines on which the population labored—and from which the urban Spanish elite derived much of their income. as did Granada o f Nicaragua.34 In brief. governed a 30-league valley. in Honduras. capital o f the alcaldia mayor o f San Salvador. as well as the haciendas. (RC 5 October 1539).

p. and showed that the practice o f corTegidores of forced sale o f goods was endemic even in this period. For example. The Indian towns o f this jurisdiction would come under the direct jurisdiction of the Governor.23 Legajo 61. Spanish authorities made no concerted effort to reduce the areas under municipal control. in the seventeenth century. 3‘ AGI Escribania 339b. 49 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. on the grounds that it improved government in the countryside. the Crown favored municipal government o f extensive territories.the process o f breakaway settlements typical o f reconquista and Habsburg Spain. so was that o f Monimbo. within 3 leagues o f the city of Granada. Volume 259. who was forbidden to name a lieutenant to fulfill this function.37 As late as 1753.38 On the eve o f the Intendancy Reforms o f 1786. j6 One case on record is that of the town o f Sonsonate. At the same time as the district o f Sutiaba was extinguished. Madrid. AGCA A 1. . Recordacion Florida . 3 September 1673. President of the Audiencia of Guatemala. Chapter 11. j8 A 1753 royal order reconfirmed that the city. refused because a Santiago resident had an encomienda of Indians in the district. most Central American ciudades and villas in fact continued to administer territories the size o f small. 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. Fuentes y Guzman. where he could better organize the province’s defense.and medium-sized provinces. The royal cedula also ordered the governor o f Nicaragua to relocate from Leon to Granada. Queen to Fernando Franco de Escobedo. Real Cedula 1 December 1753. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 177. not the alcalde mayor. was responsible for justice in this area. the Crown abolished a district in Nicaragua. Sonsonate's mayors fought in vain for much of the 16th century to receive the right to 4 leagues o f jurisdiction. Ferdinand VI confirmed the city o f San Salvador as governor ( corregidor) of its 30-league valley. Sonsonate could not even administer the 4 leagues and 22 villages o f their jurisdiction. Book 10.36 Until the 1750s. Because Santiago’s special privileges included extension o f the mayors’ privileges to any labor-supplying Indian town (pueblo encomendado). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 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. Expediente 1528.

the town councils shared territorial jurisdiction with Spanish governors. Tesoro de la lengva castellana. legal rights and political power derived from “citizenship” (vecindad) in a municipality.As might be expected.” one who lived in the countryside. As Helen Nader observed. 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. As we shall see in the discussion o f the role o f city government within the imperial political system. The city as place o f government and civilization was so deeply ingrained in Spanish culture that the term “ villano .Luis Sanchez. after 1542.” 50 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.”39 Urban residence was the source o f civil and political status and the countryside was a place without civilization. City Residents A city was more than just its territory. That political life was first and foremost organized in the city was taken for granted in the society o f early modem Castile. 1611). . 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. under “Ciudad. had his nature defined by a 39 Sebastian de Covarrubias Horozco. civil status. what Bourbon reformers later called “monstrous jurisdiction” led to significant overlap of authority when. It was also the locus o f civilization. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. however. Civil law (derecho civil) covered “all that pertained to the city.”—“Civil todo lo que pertenece al derecho de ciudad. Impresor del Rey. o espanola (Madrid.

51 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. defined by residency within a city. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. adapted to meet the specific challenges o f the situation.seventeenth-century bibliographer as “discourteous and rude. villa originally was a settlement in the countryside.”40 To understand clearly the connotation o f villano . the Spanish-American city was the source o f political rights and duties for its Spanish inhabitants. 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. According to Covamibias. Civil status. legal rights and political power derived from “citizenship” (vecindad) in a municipality. separate from and outside o f a city in which laborers worked for their lord. Second. they created separate republicas o f Spaniards and native residents—called varyingly naturales (natives). so too was the need to govern a diverse and diversifying set o f peoples. 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. the Spanish adapted the terms o f vecindad to suit the circumstances o f a transplanted and minority population. If the sheer scope of municipal jurisdictions was something unique to the New World. How was citizenship. 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. we have only to recall that this word is the direct ancestor o f our English word “villain.” Thus. Repiiblica de Espanoles: As in Spain. indigenas (indigenous). and indios (Indians).

the former two categories immediately merged. In Spain. Instead. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.” The entry continues that “De villanos se dixo villania. y entre los oficiales mecanicos. per el hecho descortes y grosero. were excluded from the group o f vecinos. The rest o f the city inhabitants. any Spaniard who established his residence in a town or city could register as a vecino and was fully enfranchised. they were the “public. . and to rent city lands in subsequent generations. but by their own Covarrubias characterized villanos as “very rustic and “unpeacefiil.” part o f the comun and pleve (plebe). civil society was divided into the nobles (caballeros or hidalgos). and were required to contribute to local taxes and military needs identified by the governor or town council. As vecinos. guardado en 52 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. renta o heredad: es un estado medio entre cavalleros. the term ‘ciudadano’ was used for the professional residents o f a city who could aspire to hold municipal office. o hidalgos. o f Indian. 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.iX In Central America. African or mixed heritage.considered fully enfranchised in the system. the cabildo.” 4 1 In early seventeenth century Spain. They also became eligible to serve their communities by holding public office as mayors and aldermen. in the initial years. The less specific term ‘vecino’ was used in the Americas to indicate fully enfranchised city residents. Such integration began with the conquest. “Ciudadano— el que vive en la ciudad y come de su hasienda. professions (ciudadanos) and householders who came from the common classes (vecinos). a class which was represented not by the official city government. Over the course o f the colonial period. the Spanish residents o f a city qualified for allocation o f land and conquered Indian villages. Cuentase entre los ciudadanos los letrados y los profesan letras y artes liberates. and at the time o f conquest.

both married sons and daughters o f the original settlers. aproximacion a su desarrollo historica (Granada: Union Iberoamericana de Municipalidades. la plebe. Title 5. owned property there. and attended council meetings when called. . 53 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Book 4.neighborhood justicias*2 By making vecindad open to all conquistadores. vecindad could also be authorized to an individual who had lived in a city for four years. Title 10. Laws 6 and 8. as well as other relatives and immigrants. became vecinos when they maintained their own households (casa poblada). 1996). Tesoro de la lengua castellana. Law 6 (21 April 1554). 43 “Plebeyo: el hombre baxo en la republica. 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. 43 Recopilacion de Indias.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. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. By the seventeenth century. Lat . Miguel Molina Martinez. Thus. into the political community because it demanded evidence o f permanent settlement— marriage or an established household—rather than place o f birth for inclusion. and Book 4. la costumbre y fuero del Reyno o tierra. p. Tesoro de la lengua casatellana. Leon’s town esto en razon de repartir los oficios. 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. Vecindad served to integrate later arrivals. as well as subsequent generations.plebeius.” Covarrubias Horozco. y que ni es cavallero ni hidalgo ni ciudadno. El municipio en America'.” See entries for both terms in Covarrubias. 48.

1980. conquest generation. Universidad de Salamanca. "The Social and Economic Bases o f Cabildo Membership in Seventeenth-Century Santiago de Guatemala. 20 March 1793. This genealogical survey thus indirectly confirms the hypothesis that what Spaniards achieved through their marriages to Creole daughters was not wealth but status. such as a seat on the town council held by his wife’s father. 1713-1787. Carta del Capitan General de Guatemala a SM. 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. most Spanish immigrants acquired their seats in this way. divided categories o f vecinos emerged in subsequent generations. "Politica y comercio: el cabildo y los regidores de Santiago de Guatemala. 1996. around 25%. in which the son-in-law acquired access to political posts. Tulane University. and the family profited from the newcomer’s commercial network or ambition. Silvia Casasola Vargas and Narda Alcantara Valverde refine this argument. and any Spanish city o f the New 44 AGI Guatemala 414. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Both works effectively disprove previous arguments that cabildo membership was restricted primarily to conquest-era families." PhD. see Stephen A. in practice. and Jose Manuel Santos Perez.44 The last qualification o f appropriate circumstances translated. an individual indicated his status by naming the city o f his vecindad.council. Webre." PhD. For legal purposes. In the colonial capital Guatemala City. land or mining. . 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.45 If all Spaniards were o f equal status in the first. Often. such alliances were achieved in marriages by Spanish immigrants with daughters o f prominent Creole families. all official vecinos had the same status: when giving testimony or signing a contract. The letter summarized Leon’s request to return to a system of annual mayoral elections which had been replaced by biannual elections in the Ordenanza de Intendentes. 54 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. at the close o f the eighteenth century. into membership or alliance with a family o f good standing in the local community and solid financial resources in commerce. referred to those eligible for municipal service as vecinos republicanos.” 1999 unpublished. “La estrategia matrimonial de la red de poderde Guatemala colonial.

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. 47 There are no regulations in the Santiago elections books that discuss this alternativa. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.and American-bom mayors and syndics that residents referred to as the alternativa. distinctions were drawn between at least two different types o f Spaniard—the American-born (Creole. This understanding governed elections with only one hiccup until independence in 1821. there was yet a third category (close) operating in some towns. Through the records of municipal office-holding. Notarial records as well as court cases provide numerous examples. . we can see how residents distinguished between criollo and peninsular vecinos. 55 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.46 By the seventeenth century. 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. or criollo or americano) and the Peninsular-bom (peninsular or gachupin). The immigrant. by 1700. In Santiago. which had been in effect since 1700. See Appendix N for a list of the mayors and syndics of 1700-1800. the council was in the hands o f a small group o f families. as we shall see below. there was an unwritten and apparently amicable understanding that provided for alternate election o f Spanish. Jose Victoriano de Retes argued that despite the alternativa. in addition they would provide their profession and state whether they were also native (natural) to the city they were rooted in. The balance became codified in different ways in different cities.or Old World was acceptable. Through adaptation to a changing society. Pieza 2. however. 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.47 In both Santiago 46 All witnesses were required to state their name and vecindad in any case. By the eighteenth century. AHN Consejos 20983. Its existence came to light in a fight between a Spanish immigrant and the town council in the 1790s. Sometimes.

Other towns that were less flourishing had a smaller group o f vecinos o f purely Spanish heritage. Titulo de Confirmacion. a royal official. were more complicated to overcome.” Chapter 2. 1786-1800. this also proved possible without deviating from extant legal tradition. and. and faced different problems o f integration— namely incorporating successful mestizos and mulattos. 48 See Santos Perez. Libro de elecciones. 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. to a certain extent. Mexico. had died before the wedding could be accomplished. 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. 16170. AGI Guatemala 437 & 446. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.49 Both Santiago and Sonsonate attracted Spanish immigrants and Creole settlers because o f their commercial importance. namely that o f no-Spanish ancestry. “Politica y comercio. . 49 AGCA A 1.50 Other forms o f illegitimacy. 50 Manuel Vasquez y Rivera (ca. After resignation o f all but one of the aldermen in 1784. 56 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Exp. as well as illegitimately bom Spaniards into full vecindad. 1792. Because o f the provisions o f Spanish law. for the Santiago sales o f 1741 and 1763. 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. The Spanish system had long-standing legal mechanisms to overcome illegitimacy as an obstacle to office. Santiago was the political and economic capital o f the kingdom. the self-imposed balance between the two types o f Spaniard extended to eighteenth-century group sales o f aldermen’s seats.48 It also extended to elections o f biennial aldermen in Guatemala in the eighteenth century.23 Legajo 2244. 1760-1825) proved that his two single Creole parents had not married because his father. He had to pay an extra fee (dispensa) before the title was issued. Guatemala City elected 10 regidores for two-year terms between 1784 and 1792.and the villa o f Sonsonate. Sonsonate coordinated trade between Guatemala and Peru.

at birth. It seems likely that such promotion was not unique. narrowing the definition to the “third class o f Spaniard. despite opposition by rivals in the town who claimed both men were barred from holding office because o f their mestizo and mulatto heritage. they eventually recanted. concluding that the evidence o f mixed blood wasn’t conclusive—although baptismal certificates showed that at least Vasconcelos had been registered as a ladino. and used their service to demonstrate status and as a stepping stone to a new rank.” and that the exceptions were for the most part legal. this meaning would imply common birth. 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. in Central America.” In Spain. . and that the race question was likely the most promising way to impede the confirmation o f their titles. a person with known African ancestry. it meant mixed ancestry. there probably would have 57 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. when it becomes clear from a close reading of the case that the town council’s objections originated with an alderman who had a long-standing land dispute with the two aspirants.Jose Antonio Vasconcelos and Manuel Antonio Yraeta succeeded in purchasing regimientos in late eighteenth-century San Vicente (El Salvador). Although witnesses at first identified both pretendants as “espaiioles. Had there been no enmity. 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.” or Spaniards. Both Yraeta and Vasconcelos had held this position. The King confirmed both purchases.

there would be an annual election o f two alcaldes de hermandad. 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. 1786. Textos Fundamentales de la Independencia Centroamericana ([San Jose]: Editorial Universitaria Centroamericana. If vecindad was restricted to a limited category of residents o f the Kingdom of Guatemala. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Manuel Mier y Teran. 1971). Baraona argued that the practice was common to all three “provinces” o f San Salvador. 58 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.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. 1792. AGI Guatemala 437. who made up no more than a twentieth of its inhabitants. p. villa o lugar”of at least 30 vecinos. 336.666 Indians. which held that in every “ciudad. 334 “castas. one noble (del estado de los Caballeros y escuderos) and one not (el otro de los ciudadanos y pecheros). . Another vecino. 2 The census o f 1811 listed 646.. ed.” and 40. they were simply demonstrating that incorporation o f new groups could happen through the mechanisms o f vecindad. 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. if town councils allowed known mestizos and mulatos who made up the “third class” o f Spaniards to serve as alcaldes de la hermandad. Remate de un regimiento sencillo de San Vicente a Jose Antonio Vasconcelos. Jose de Oyos.” in Carlos Melendez. The law referred to is likely Title 35. 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. 313. “Situacion politica del Reino de Guatemala. apoderado de la villa de San Vicente. Law 1 (1496) o f the Novisima Recopilacion de las Leyes de Espana.000 whites.52 it nonetheless operated at a much more open and flexible process than is generally asserted.

children o f the elite also helped the council function in the changing population o f colonial Central America. The opposite case obtained for the other communities o f the isthmus. as well as for the religious and political advancement. and mechanisms such as described above permitted this reality to receive at least limited acknowledgment. that city living was a requirement. civilization and republic (republica ) were synonymous. 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. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As Appendix E shows. As we have seen. As we shall see in Chapter 5. If town status gave Spaniards and Creoles significant power 59 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. and again in the first twenty years after independence. by the late eighteenth century. City. 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. the conquistadors and Spanish Crown decreed the application of an appropriately adjusted urban model for new vassals—what we now know as the republica de indios. which often had to be persuaded by Spanish authorities to live in towns. the Indian Republic. Spanish communities and individuals took an active role in creating and preserving their town governments and status. they also believed that for their own administrative ease. or “civilization” of the Maya and other Indian communities. the urban population that was neither Spaniard nor Indian significantly outnumbered the other two categories. Republica de Indios: Having preserved order and government for themselves. . Not only could the Spaniards only imagine themselves in cities.

54 Recopilacion . “La Conquista Espanola de Centroamerica. For an extensive discussion on the Spanish conquest o f Central America. the society was both well-organized and. . (Madrid: FLACSO.G. Once settled into pueblos de indios. and to teach them to live politically (politicamente ). they could not legally move back to the countryside or even change towns.” Once the Spaniards had founded their own towns and cities. Law 23 (Ordenanza 136. Title 7. political and religious behavior. in the words of 53 Recopilacion. many Indian populations were cajoled or coerced from “mountain freedom” into reducciones.” in Julio Pinto Soria. once installed. 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 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Lutz. ed. 1618). 21-93. see W. Book 6. to hold friendship with them. Felipe II). Title 4. Book 4. with particular emphasis on its impact on Indian populations. pp.. The declared Spanish intention in populating the Americas was. “to teach them [the Indians] to know God and his sacred Law . On the contrary. respecting a system of governance based on a combination o f Spanish and native political traditions. Kramer. El Regimen Colonial (1524-1570). village life for the rest o f colonial society meant greater Spanish control o f their economic. Lovell. after defend their own interests against those of their peers. Laws 18 and 19 (1604. 2.. the natives o f Central America experienced their own kind o f “municipal conquest. or urban living.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. what the Spanish meant by Indians ‘living politically’ was living where the Spaniards could find and control them and. W. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Historia General de Centroamerica.”53 Essentially. H. the Crown and its agents. v. priests and governors.. 1993). by settlers. Thus. and C.

. they also instituted a system of mayors and councilmen that followed the same structure o f that o f the Spanish town council. failure to attend mass.56 Just as the city government of Spaniards had changed in the New World. Fuentes y Guzman approved of this procedure. 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. Book 1. Catholic Colonialism. 61 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. of which Law 15(1618) orders each town to have a native Indian mayor (alcalde) from the same place. The maximum number of regidores for the Indian village was 4. pp. apparently. 701-711.000 houses. This tradition survived into the historian’s times. for contributing to the flourishing o f the republicas de los indios o f and lowland achievement. so pre­ conquest indigenous custom was syncretized with Spanish tradition. For towns with more than 80 houses. . prender y traer a los delinquentes a la carcel del Pueblo de espaiioles. Indian mayors were forbidden from participation in the repartimiento. However.” except in cases o f drunkenness or. Annual elections were to be conducted in presence of the parish priest. the pueblo had 2 mayors and 2 aldermen. 15-17 55 Fuentes y Guzman. 56 Book 6 o f the Recopilacion was dedicated to the laws governing Indians.”55 When the Spanish set up a parallel republica for the indigenous communities.. pp. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Title 3 deals with the reducciones and pueblos. As Fuentes y Guzman commented.” Historian Adriaan Van Oss first applied it to Central America. claiming that reason would recommend it to all republicas. Recordacion Florida. although the responsibilities were limited to keeping order. made up of three kingdoms (reinos ) with “great cities with magnificent and decorous buildings. Law 16 explains the jurisdiction o f the mayors as “solamente para inquirir. all o f whom had to be Indians. in the progression by Indian leaders from service as constables and scribes preceding election to the post o f mayor {alcaldes). Van Oss. and 8-10. the caciques o f the Indian kingdoms began their political service with lower-level jobs to arrive at their ranking political and military posts. when he could inflict corporal punishment or put the offender in jail for up to one day.Fuentes y Guzman. Chapter 3.

s' Fuentes y Guzman.. who treat them poorly. Chapter 3. “colmados de experiencias. were prepared to offer a substantial donation— 1500 pesos—to attract the king’s ear and sympathy. like the Spanish cities. . 62 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.former times. argued that a governor. the Indians o f the pueblos of Sutiaba. 339B. Los Indios de los Pueblos de Sutiaba. no matter how rigorous. “filled with experience.. Pozotelguilla and Teliga joined together to appeal to the King for a governor. whose good councilors had. Recordacion Florida. conciliaban con benevolencia la felicidad de los sucesos para sus reyes” 58 AGI Escribania. 701-711. The origins o f the case are in a seventeenth century decision allocating the Indian villages to Leon’s jurisdiction. pp. with this Dominion (Imperio ) passing even to their dependents (criados) and slaves. Los Indios de los Pueblos de Sutiaba. Pozotelguilla y Telica con el Cavildo justicia y regimiento de la Ciudad de Leon de Nicaragua. f.”58 The Indians. 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. Ciudad. f. 1768. in fact. Quesalbague.”57 Sometimes. Pozotelga. 339B. the Bishop o f Nicaragua. and their supporter. Pozotelga.. sobre petender dchos Indios y Pueblos ser govemados por corregidor Nombrado por SM y no por los Alcaldes Ordinarios de dcha.59 Even a limited republica was a powerful institution within the Spanish imperial system. Quesalbague. benevolently reconciled happy outcomes for their kings.. Book 1. 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. 241. In the early eighteenth century. 217. . and. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 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 occupied all the time they could work to pay their tributes. 5 < >AGI Escribania.

City councils represented the interests o f their residents to lowly clerks but also to the king.” or politico-administrative district. as the end of municipal autonomy and the relegation of 63 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. the conquest city council was. o f Guatemala in 1542. an important and respected institution o f royal government. when the Spanish Crown introduced other. By 1542. The real work o f the colonial administrative system— legislative. Historians have treated the imposition o f a formal government structure. mediated and took a direct gubernatorial role in indigenous provinces. In those first years. directly appointed institutions o f secular government to the Americas. It was also the only institutional secular authority. 1542-1700 Between 1524 and 1542. Spanish imperial officials sent after the establishment o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala supposedly supervised. in the capital of each province. the conquistadors established the republic o f cities that would formally be incorporated into the Spanish “kingdom.Chapter 2 City & Colonial State. executive and judicial—was on a day-to-day basis carried out by the town council. it was clear that their function would (at least in theory) complement and support the work o f the cabildo rather than supplant it. with governors and their lieutenants. They also directly governed vast expanses that to start out with had no independently assigned governors to question their authority. but were to leave administration and justice to the Spanish town and city councils in which they resided. . Further reproduction prohibited without permission. like its model in Spain. or was not done at all. with both significant privileges and responsibilities.

governor and church that made the imperial system function and secured its position as arbiter o f justice and policy. Royal treatment o f disputes that arose tended to seek a balance that gave neither council nor governor a permanent upper hand. the cabildo. This chapter relocates the role of the city government. . Yet. the evidence does not bear this out. who represented the eyes and ears o f the Crown on the ground. could not carry its weight in battles with the supposedly superior officialdom with royal appointments. It also hinges on understanding disputes between cabildos and governors as disputes between local authority and Spanish authority. For. was the official representative of its people. 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. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 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. two hundred years after the conquest. 64 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. the imperial perspective never shifted: the cabildo or Indian community. This relegation is based in part on the misrepresentation o f the city as a purely urban center. although we are led to believe that the city government. as a purely local authority. and o f equal status as its governors or district court judges. Certainly. For the Spanish Crown. it was the balance among city.the city government to purely local administrative tasks.

Carmelo Saenz de Santa Maria. 2 AGI Guatemala 534. 1996). 1713-1787. 4a Impresion (Madrid. Madrid 1943) Book 4. ed. as the council of Guatemala City (Santiago) declared. “Politica y comercio: el cabildo y los regidores de Santiago de Guatemala. mayors. Book 4 Title 7 Law 2 (1596/n. This last category received only one. Libro Viejo de la Fundacion de Guatemala (Guatemala: Academia de Geografia e Historia de Guatemala. o Alcalde mayor."2 The cabildo had two parts. and Maria del Carmen Deola de Giron. “[el] Juez con ritulo de Adelantado.” 65 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. and represented it at ' Elections and appointments of council members in Guatemala City’s 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. paleography. distinguished not between ciudad and villa. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “principally resides the care for the public good (bien publico). o Alcalde ordinario. and in its mayors the administration o f justice o f this city and its Valley. o Corregidor. 4. who prepared policy papers for the council’s consideration and action. April 1728. 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. o f Salamanca. Book 4 Title 7. 1991). Two mayors (alcaldes ordinarios) dispatched civil and criminal justice in the first instance while between six and twenty regidores (aldermen) handled government and administration. Univ. y juntamente con el Regimiento tenga la administracion de la republica. election of 8 January 1525. . and regular villa y lugar. 4 Recopilacion. Cabildo de Santiago de Guatemala. See. 12. Italics are mine. rather than two. For an explanation o f the different responsibilities attached to the regimientos.3 Together.The Spanish Town Council As in Spain. for example. 1791. set the number o f regidores between 6 and 12. p. see Jose M.1 In this corporation. A separate law. “Principal” ciudades had twelve. Chapter 2. Law 2. 1568. Santos Perez. Law 11 (1523.). 4 A full city council included a syndic (procurador sindico). diocesana o sufraganea (bishop). 8.” (PhD.d. Title 10.Tomo 2a. que exerza la jurisdiccion insolidum. but by religious presence: the metropolitana (archbishop in residence) had most 12 alderman. the New World town council (cabildo or ayuntamiento) governed both rural and urban segments of the republica. 1610). villas and pueblos had six. 3 Recopilacion de Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias. the justicia (justice) and regimiento (government).

argues that in 16th century Castile. 1516-1700 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Liberty in Absolutist Spain: The Habsburg Sale o f functions. Libro Viejo. To demonstrate what Spaniards. 1990). and their American bom descendants. The secretary took minutes at each meeting {sesiori) and produced the book of actas o f a year’s ordinary and extraordinary sessions. Together. ed. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. has been transcribed and their consciences. and seeing to and procuring with all diligence and vigilance the good government {buen regimiento) and provision o f this villa'. increasing its holdings and income (propios y rentas ). Saenz de Santa Maria. he earned his living through fees taken in as scribe in the mayors’ courts. o f which the first page. the syndic held a salaried position.. or scribe {escribano). ensuring that they are spent and distributed on necessities both useful and advantageous.6 5 Helen Nader. 6 This oath is taken from the book o f acts of the first cabildo of Santiago de Guatemala.justicia y regimiento met twice weekly (ideally) to treat on matters affecting the republica. is missing. helping and providing for the widows and orphans. ensuring the order and good harmony that is necessary. and doing the rest that concerns and is annexed to their charges. and a secretary. The full text o f this book. with the actual description o f the founding. p. 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.3 two rural constables {alcaldes de la hermandad). including a list o f vecinos who received lands in 1527 when the city was refounded. 7. . [and] keeping above all the service of God and their majesties.. knew to be the work o f the justicia y regimiento de la republica. it is necessary to provide a detailed accounting. 66 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 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. and procuring for its advantage and welfare and that o f its householders ( vecinos) and plebe (comtin). the Creoles. 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.

1966). Chapter 1 o f historian John Preston M oore’s 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. City government had so much to do with the running o f everyday events. although Moore does not directly discuss the original Castilian regulations. and public spectacle.7 And even the peninsular compilation was silent on many aspects of municipal law. limited its comments to aspects o f city government that were unlikely to be found in the laws governing Castilian townships. which remained in use throughout the colonial period can be 67 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. even if he or she never set foot in the halls o f the casa de cabildo. 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. . or that differed significantly from the Castilian example. many o f the responsibilities o f city government were understood and taken for granted by city residents. provides a rich background to the 18th century Spanish cabildo. a compilation o f nearly two hundred years’ worth o f legislation published in 1680. Who could fail to observe the alcaldes. that no visitor or town dweller could ignore it. The Recopilacion de Indias.8 As the presentation o f the activity and presence o f the city councils below shows. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the ordenanzas de buen gobiemo (ordinances o f good government). ' Recopilacion. as they had taken for granted that their government would be municipal. 5 & 6.This general overview is as specific as contemporary definitions get. crisis management. 8 A list of ordinances issued by Santiago de Guatemala between 1S24 and 1S80. specific to its circumstances and approved individually by the king. as each town after founding drafted its own regulations. Books 4. such as authority over Indian populations. NC: Duke University Press. as well as the full texts of general ordinances from 1559 and 1580. and cannot be found in any written legal code.

pp. A useful general study is John Preston Moore. fiscal and physical health. The Cabildo in Peru under the Hapsburgs: A 68 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.” the most commonly mentioned functions o f the city relate to the urban center.9 And. 9 For Central America in particular. El Ayuntamiento Colonial de la Ciudad de Guatemala (Guatemala: Editorial Universitaria. watering holes and agricultural lands? What man. . Regarding judicial functions. El ayuntamiento colonial. and development o f the city. and tavern owner or the best work is Emesto Chinchilla Aguilar. who had to petition twice a year to renew her license. 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. since “city” has usually been defined as “urban center. gather to welcome a new governor or attend a ceremony at the governor’s 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. 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. was not aware o f the city’s power? What vecino. who had to present her wares for evaluation to a regidor for proper pricing. sword buckled to his side. each man proudly displaying his uniform with gold-braided hat and cape. 1961). had not his own ideas about the value of city government? Who had not turned to watch the full cabildo. 76-79 and 222-239. ordered to whitewash his house or contribute funds or supplies to the paving effort o f his street or to kill rabid dogs.

regidores Jose Aycinena and Manuel Lara reported on Juarros’ work. and headed patrols that were often composed o f men assigned by neighborhood Indian justices and mulatto militiamen. 76-79. and the magnitude o f the responsibility and its political import o f the city council. Documentos Coloniales de Honduras (Tegucigalpa: Centro de Publicaciones Obispado de Choluteca. Law I and 23 ordered cities and towns to build jails and provided for a regidor to visit them to ensure proper functioning. Exp 15736. 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. they discuss the faculties o f the town constable. El Ayuntamiento Colonial. Exp.2 Exp 2189. in 1800 and again 1810. o f Oklahoma Press. Alvares also hoped that his wife’s service in the barrio’s cofradia would count toward his service and exempt him.1 1 What gets lost in this kind of treatment is the importance o f the rural component of the city to its functioning. p 42-5 for a discussion o f the Spanish alcaldes' use o f Indian justices and mulatto militiamen to patrol the city. 1810. Leyva. See Christopher H. AGCA A 1. 1 1 Book 7. That the practice o f using Indian city residents for patrols was extensive to other cities. masters o f each craft For original Guatemalan ordenanzas. Guatemala City capitulares (councilors) revised the ordenanzas of the city artesans. enforced imperial and local laws. Lutz. 1530-1700 (Durham. Sonsonate. turned vagrants into workers. f 131. 135v.2 Leg 2I89. turned them over to the mayors for trial.) operating within city limits and various general rules of order. 51-55. Actas de Cabildo. Title 6. Caste and the Colonial Experience (Norman: U. retaining the authority to confirm new maestros. did not stop at the last city street but extended into the distant countryside.E xp 15736. however.10 Regarding the city’s control o f judicial and police work. Actas de Cabildo. the city assigned regidor Antonio Juarros to form the regulations. Recopilacion. Regulations from Comayagua (Honduras) from 1560 can be found in Hector M. AGCA A 1. see Chinchilla Aguilar. who policed the city. On 28 June 1811. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1954). For Guatemala City. muleteer. 42. 20 69 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. The ordenanzas dealt with the use Study in the Origins and Powers o f the Town Council in the Viceroyalty o f Peru. NC: Duke University Press. to Captain General (MYS). . and on 25 October the ayuntamiento approved the regulations. see Alcaldes Ordinarios. 1028.2 Leg. etc. 1994). 1991). AGCA A1. Santiago de Guatemala 1541-1773: City. maintained the city jails. arrested wrongdoers. pp. f f 91v. in contemporary terms.gobierno ) that established regulations for each profession (blacksmith. miller. 1 0 For example. On 20 November 1810. Regulations and policing. 1811. baker. prevented) an individual from holding public office. Being a debtor exempted (or. shoemaker. pp.

made no official reports on his activities. Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles. pp. conducted annual administrative visits through the jurisdiction. especially if sources that can August 1817. in Chinchilla Aguilar. Caja 1810-21/3. and so left a limited paper trail. Sobre que el Ale.o f land outside the urban center. a purchased position. 1969-1972). El Ayuntamiento colonial. Ediciones Atlas. Vol. ed. Carmelo Saenz de Santa Maria. including interdiction o f free-pasturing o f pigs and mules in the city’s communal lands (ejidos) because o f the damage they caused. who lived in the countryside and served as the physical and political link between rural and urban Spaniard and Indian.” encouraging them to live a “licentious life. because the Juez only arrived to investigate a “atrocious crime. Obras Histdricas de Francisco Antonio de Fuentes y Guzman.A. AMS. p.1 3 When the mayors were also governors. Liberty in Absolutist Spain. merits further consideration.” Francisco Antonio de Fuentes y Guzman. The position was created by Isabella. 1 3 The responsibilities o f this city official are not described in the Leyes de Indias. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The existence o f the provincial de la hermandad. pp. 70 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1 4 The same author reports that the Guatemala City mayors. intento quartar (sic) la Jurisdiccion q. 234-235.1 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. Mr. Ordenanzas de 1580. (Madrid. When complaints by Indian and Spaniard alike brought an end to the practice. siempre han exercido los Alcaldes Ordin. was not a voting member. 83. 205. may also have confused the question.. Book 5.s de este N.. Nader. Fuentes y Guzman argues that the fear that led to “good procedures and method o f a politic and Christian life” had vanished. but in the Novisima Recopilacion de las Leyes de Espana . 230. . Chapter 4. Recordacion Florida. The role o f this official. assault. de 4 leguas encontom o. these duties were shared. in Fuentes y Guzman. for the first 82 years o f the city’s existance. 385. who ordered the municipalities of Castile to appoint these officials to patrol the countryside during the insecure years when she acceded to the throne. ’* Articles 19-20.12 The alcalde de la hermandad was responsible for arresting and trying individuals involved in banditry. robbery and other violent crimes committed outside the urban limits (casco) o f the city. from which peninsular law derives. This silence is likely compounded because the alcalde de hermandad rarely attended council meetings. 230. which drew a salary but had no visible activity.

allocated water supplies. Such studies demonstrate how each city had aldermen who maintained and ran the markets. 209. studies focus particularly on the urban center in which most administration was necessary and which received the beneficence o f the hinterland." Revista del Instituto de Antropologia e Historia de Guatemala 5:2 (June 1953). and Chinchilla Aguilar. 71 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Stephen Webre. licensed taverns. Although the rural constable was not a voting member o f the council. p.further detail the experiences o f the men who filled this function can be found. 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. he did share the authority of the institution and the unique position o f liaison between both city spaces. 1555-1773. pp. and thus unable to participate in the selection of mayor and syndic. For example. Such studies are useful. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. including fountains. and basins. Recordacion Florida. 57-84. 19-31. For more on this subject. aqueducts. corralled the best goods entering the city and often forced sales to their own clients at fixed prices. 1990). and awarded the monthly contract to the town’s official meat supplier. shoemakers and other artisans. “Water and society in a Spanish American city: Santiago de Guatemala. and interfered with 1 5 The city used its income from water rights to pay to maintain public waterworks.15 rented out booths in the main plaza. pp. 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 city’s meat (abasto de came). “El Ramo de Aguas de la Ciudad de Guatemala en la epoca colonial.” Hispanic American Historical Review 70:1 (Feb. checked the accuracy o f weights and measures. for they show the consequences o f policies as well as the intentions. . set the price o f bread and licensed bakers. Regarding the council’s broad powers to ensure the proper provisioning o f the republic.

divided. “One of the most appreciable prerogatives that the cabildo and regimiento of Goathemala (sic) confers on its mayors. “is the corregimiento of the Valley. The regidores. . 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 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. cloth and other products to the municipal markets. selected annually or monthly from among the regidores. ANH (Tegucigalpa). AHN (Madrid). 1563. wood. despite provisions against such abuse. Title 9.” Chapter 3. 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 city’s provisions. relatives (allegados ) usually got the lucrative contract. Guatemala City syndic Sebastian Melon in 1803 blew the whistle on coercion by aldermen o f various rural tradesmen. made sure to set them in such a way that the villages in the district o f a town brought sufficient comestibles. 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. . 18 December 1806. 3200.1 7 Yet if many o f the tasks o f provisioning were undertaken in the city center. 1 7 Book 4. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cattle rancherregidores influenced the monthly assignment o f the licence to sell meat to the city market. Seccion Colonial. On the question of markets. Doc. Domingo Payes a la nine fertile 1 6 These were the juez de policia and fie l executor. 1596) provided for preferential treatment for regidores in assignment o f city plots in new cities. Caja 99. but the evidence o f abuse is abundant. “Politica y comercio. 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. Consejos 20983. Law 5 o f the Recopilacion (1532. supposedly to poor city dwellers but often to the more affluent and the church..” wrote Fuentes y Guzman. who set prices o f goods. Although Book 4. a city monopoly. Pieza 20. Without the vast jurisdiction. However. Unsurprisingly.competing merchants. and the libros de cabildo o f 1792. For egregious behavior o f the Guatemalan landowning-aldermen families. the council would not have had access to most of the goods that supplied the urban residents. see Santos Perez. Law 4 o f the Recopilacion (1572) explicitly forbade mayors and aldermen from participating in provisioning. Title 12. Testimonio de los escritos (1803). composed of 77 populous pueblos.16 The cabildo rented the city’s communal lands (ejidos ).

1787. fish. and fodder. hunting.000 Indian inhabitants. Testimonio. wood. provide (hacen y ordenan) the regular supply and prudent granary o f Guatemala” The extensive termino. commissioning vecino Juan Rubio y Gemmir to import 200 fanegas o f com. the message was sent. 1 8 Fuentes y Guzman. roofing tiles. while Amatitlan provided fruits (including limes. 215-216. bricks. 41. AHN Consejos 20983. 2331) make clear that this was a regular task. Two days later. although not all the districts had as varied an agricultural zone as Guatemala City. pp.2. In the same shortage. and eight haciendas produced sugar. From the 28 pueblos in the outskirts alone. 20 For example. communal lands to nearby Indian villages.. 267. . AGCA A 1. oranges. Leg. crockery. 230. Juan Pedro Oyarzabal to Captain General. Asuncion used a second tactic to procure grain. 52v-53. 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. a situation that outraged the whistleblower. Exp. with over 70. A 1.and beneficial valleys. Chapter 1.. peppers. Only in emergencies that threatened the city’s basic supplies did the cabildo turn to other provinces to purchase and dispense grain at reasonable prices. 2177. 247. 73 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. was rich in water.2. adobe. The servicios y meritos o f various 18th century councilors of Guatemala (AGCA A 1. flowers. 6 November 1787. Pieza 20. provided most of the city’s wheat. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. after receiving approval form the fiscal. garbanzos. in 1785. 3 June 1785.2. Leg. Book 8. stone. San Pedro Martir. and medicinal herbs. plantains. Vol. 15715. del sindico Sebastian Melon. diversity and pleasant flavor of their fruits. 1011. poultry.. pork. lard. the cities of Central America would not have controlled either supplies or prices o f incoming products.[a]nd that all. eggs. for the abundance.18 Another town. Exp. Leg.19 The ample and populous territories o f the other cities served the same function. 1 9 Fuentes y Guzman. and papayas) and the Valle de las Vacas proved a good site to raise cattle.219.20 Without an extensive hinterland. . even if it lost money in the process. Book 9. pp. Session. 226-227. 230. ft". 1803. Chapter 1. Libro de Actas. the city was supplied with com. Recordacion Florida. beans.2. Vol. Recordacion Florida. pineapples.

the mayors of the capital only received the right to assign labor in 1729. the colonial cabildo served both as economic and also political focus for its district. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. AHN Consejos 20953. ff. Although cities were strictly forbidden by laws of the Indies to participate in the assignment of labor o f Crown Indians (repartimiento ). as well as laborers to work on the water system. no cover sheet. . who argued that the town’s 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. 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. 22 Fuentes y Guzman.22 Even in other cities that did not have Guatemala City’s gubernatorial status. Institutional studies of 2 1 For an example from Guatemala. pp. According to Santos Perez. 215-216. with an extension that we would more likely characterize today as provincial rather than urban. see the complaint o f Da. not to mention less costly. 66-72v. including San Salvador and Guatemala City. after convincing the Crown that their administration would be more efficient than that o f the three jueces repartidores currently employed. 1-1 v. 230. The hinterland also supplied the city with skilled and unskilled labor. but to individual farms.“Politica y comercio. Guatemala. Recordacion Florida. Carta de Francisco de Carrandi y Meran. sent butchers and others to dress meat. both legal and illegal access to Indian labor would have been impossible or at the very least severely restricted. the 1725 argument o f the alcalde mayor o f Sonsonate.” p. were authorized as corregidores to assign them to labor not only on public works within the cities. AGI Guatemala 507.Provisioning did not stop with comestibles. f. for example. however. for example. 4). 74 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Chapter 1.21 The outskirts o f Guatemala City. Landivar stated that the mayors had “governed those pueblos since the foundation and conquest” (f. 7 May 1725. saving 900 pesos in salaries granted to those functionaries. Santos Perez. Among her arguments. 23 See. 219. the alcaldes ordinarios and alcaldes de santa hermandad were known to do the same. 379. Vol. Book 8.23 Without an extensive and well-populated hinterland. Pieza 70. mayors in several o f Central America’s principal cities. Through its active presence in the countryside.

and participation in. The alferez real. not the illegal extension o f municipal authority to the countryside.24 The urban and rural mayors carried the vara de justicia. He also 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. To demonstrate the collaborative relationship the Crown desired for the two branches o f secular government. challenged. which distinguished their presence as unmistakably official. a town council was much more than the sum o f its practical responsibilities.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. 2195. Finally. As we shall see below. 109. if relations between the two authorities were difficult. Yet even when challenged. This alderman also commanded the city militia. as well as the prestige o f the capitulares. Exp. but rather complemented and. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. even after the establishment o f governors to serve as liaisons between American territories and the Crown. coordinated the city’s contributions to. The city government played a very visible. and likely the Americas. or standard bearer. 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. . the cabildo sat next to the highest Spanish official at important ceremonies. f. the basis for any dispute was the overlap o f authority. 15749.23 Leg. a staff with a gold tip. the responsibilities and powers of the city council for all o f the residents within its jurisdiction was not reduced. 24 A 1. symbolic and ceremonial political role both on the street and within the empire. for much o f the colonial period the most extensive form o f military presence in the ICingdom o f Guatemala.

political and economic services performed by vecinos in order to increase that individual’s chance for selection for an honor or salaried position. Cabildo de Ciudad Real de S.26 If a royal order or official was perceived as harmful to local interests.2. 1787. AGCA. Cristobal a SM. the king granted the cabildo o f San Salvador the right to wear the same uniform. the city fathers of Ciudad Real de San Cristobal (Chiapas) received equal favor. 17 August 1818. or custody o f the judicial staff. 2177. Libro de Actas.22. the hats were decorated in gold braid. The latter praised the positive effects a uniform might have on perceptions o f the council. but they were allowed to send representatives to Spain. Ciudad Real de Chiapas and San Salvador—sought and received this privilege from the King. at least three proud councils o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala— Guatemala City. The town council could also recommend the merits o f clergymen. it was the cabildo that challenged the official locally or. Intendant of San Salvador.both in secular places and in cathedrals and churches. To ensure maximum pomp and visibility. As representative o f the republica . with cuffs and undercoat o f the dress coat lined in gold for gala events and white for lesser occasions. 31-32. the cities of the Americas did not have the right to attend the Cortes. . Exp. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. :5Guatemala received royal approval in 1787 to wear black uniforms. substituted for absent or indisposed alcaldes.' AGI Guatemala 414. In the close o f the eighteenth century. Legajo 2331. 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. 26 February 1798. or Estates General. a town council courted the right to wear a uniform. As late as 1818. for they thought the distinction would stimulate the town's vecinos to willingly aspire to the dignity of ‘padres de la patria. 8 February 1590. In 1798. as the town o f Granada did on 29 July 1796 76 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. through a ceremony known as deposito de vara. when local remedies failed. ff. the city council officially recommend to the king the military. the city council also was an effective representative o f local interests within the imperial system. wrote to the appropriate authorities in Guatemala City or Spain for redress. AGCA A12. 15715. Leg. RC. AGI Guatemala 417. Unlike Spanish cities.25 Behind the scenes.

27 One example.* The city's representative faculty was well recognized among contemporaries. whom they hoped the king would choose as the diocese’s next bishop. the practices of repartimiento o f Indian services and of goods to Indians. 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. began with the conquest and continued until independence. This right. The Central American city. who understood that a cabildo was more than an administrative or judicial body. City government meant not just administration. Documents include information on the prices and goods sold to Indians by the alcalde mayor. 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. 2/ The cabildo of Santiago de Guatemala and other towns in Alvarado’s district sent a representative first to Mexico and later to Spain to plead for privileges and supplies in the years immediately following the conquest. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. prolific. but also the functioning o f the city council as spokesperson for elite interests. 28 This fascinating case. and the helplessness o f a governor to counter a concerted attack by city and commercial interests. but legislative and judicial authority. AGI Guatemala 534. See Libro Viejo. 77 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. The city was not just the urban center but a populated. exercised singly and in alliances. settled countryside. uncovers not only the links between Guatemala City merchants and Salvador indigo hacendados. Military and religious functions were included as well. the relations between the Galvez family of Guatemala and the province o f San Salvador. . was for Juan Francisco Vilches y Cabrera.or to hire men in Spain to seek royal intervention. or executive power. when properly running and functioning. which stretched decades and produced thousands o f pages of evidence. What the accounting o f the extensive physical. passim. which we shall examine in further detail below. AHN Consejos 20967-20968.

See for example. AGCA A 3110-161. Historians have accepted that after this law was passed. the manner o f achieving municipal office was fixed. if restricted. El ayuntamiento colonial. Membership in the City Council Who qualified to govern these miniature states? Membership in the council was restricted to vecinos. the regimientos became salable offices purchased from the Crown for life and theoretically. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. as part o f the act o f foundation. purchase was the only way to acquire a regimiento. With the demise or absence of the conquistadors. Each January. rural constable. f 149 The tesorero de papel sellado became saleable in 16S4. John Horace Parry. the mayors and aldermen. and syndic continued to be elected annually by council members. City mayors and the syndic were elected annually by the outgoing cabildo. while the positions o f mayor. The governor. In the sixteenth century.29 29 Chinchilla Aguilar. fixture o f city politics. all city council positions became elective: the outgoing council members elected their replacements. named the first officials o f the town council. but only vecinos could elect. By the seventeenth century. p. 26. with all the attributes we might comfortably assign a modem state.indeed a model republic. the incoming cabildo selected its rural constables. A royal cedula o f 28 March 1640 announced the saleability of the positions o f alcalde mayor and alcalde provincial de sta hdd. election was a permanent. . be elected. Outside authorities confirmed elections and ran sales of office. available only to those who had the funds and background to purchase them. Although many historians emphasize the closed nature o f accession to municipal office. The sale o f public office in the Spanish Indies under the Hapsburgs (Berkeley: University of 78 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. two classics. and the aldermen's seats were purchased for life by eligible vecinos. and purchase positions.

" Tierra Firme III-IV (1936): 353-381. in practice. California Press. . “Nucleos de poder local y relaciones familiares en la ciudad de Guatemala a finales del siglo XVIII.If in theory. thus preventing the overlap o f the two competing authorities. First. by taking office. and Jose Manuel Santos Perez. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and who sought to benefit themselves. Universidad de Salamanca. the town council was always in the hands o f local elites— the merchants. see Stephen A. Webre.30 It seems likely that the other towns and cities of the isthmus followed a similar pattern. 79 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. each the capital of alcaldias mayores?x Historians have emphasized the limits to the democratic attributes of the council. see Gustavo Palma Murga. concejos y ciudades. Tulane University. "The Social and Economic Bases o f Cabildo Membership in Seventeenth-Century Santiago de Guatemala.. the pattern was confirmed in eighteenth-century Tegucigalpa and Sonsonate. 1713-1787" (PhD. 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. and their communities. 1953). Second. Certainly. the seats could pass to any vecino. by incorporating different professions and new arrivals at times o f key political decisions. "Politica y comercio: el cabildo y los regidores de Santiago de Guatemala. and Jose Maria Ots Capdequi. 1996)." PhD. noting with particular disfavor the Habsburg conversion o f regimientos from elective to saleable offices. 1980. and allowing seats to go unfilled at times o f political quiet."El regimen municipal hispanoamericano del periodo colonial.” Mesoamerica 12 (1986): 241-308. although further research o f early cabildo records would need to confirm it. Spanish officials were repeatedly denied the possibility of holding municipal office. farmers and miners who combined wealth and connections. as we shall see in the next chapters. 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. For the late eighteenth century. Yet certain freedoms obtained through even limited electoral processes.

many aldermen spent more than a decade on 80 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. For the sales o f 1742 and 1761. Third. Sonsonate and Tegucigalpa. '. see Santos Perez.3 Guatemala had three group sales during the eighteenth century. given the circumstances surrounding the sales. group sales and resignations also proved means to change the character o f a municipal council. it frequently passed to a relative— son. In the late eighteenth century. through refusal to purchase vacant regimientos.34 Thus. which allowed a range o f vecinos to acquire government experience and access to other offices. . Guatemala City and Sonsonate. It would be interesting to chart the rise and fall o f municipal importance through such prices. Tables II-5 and II-6. that political considerations were more important. these men could be certain o f controlling the council and its resources. It seems more likely. in the eighteenth century. even within the limits o f limited access to 3 1 For a list o f city councilors of Guatemala City. Even if the seat changed hands. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.” Chapter 2. in which the titles of the regidores explain the circumstances o f the sales. When a “faction” could organize the purchase of 14 (1742). 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. each of which followed a long period o f multiple vacancies on the council. members of the local elite had a means to offer temporary political status to newcomers. local elites could also pressure governors to return to elections o f aldermen. Sonsonate and Tegucigalpa between 1776 and 1850. see AGI Guatemala 446. 8 (1761) and 11 (1793) regimientos in Guatemala and 4 (1775) in the much smaller council o f Sonsonate. 32 Prices of council seats varied significantly. For the Guatemala sale of 1793 and Sonsonate sale o f 1775. “Politica y comercio. the town vecinos thus held significant autonomy within the justice system. see Appendices K-M.with the right to annually elect five city positions. meaning that city governments often outlived any appointed official that might oppose a local administration.33 Many regimientos also remained in the hands of one alderman for as long as a decade. 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 cities—Guatemala City.32 Fourth. as happened in at least two cities o f Central America. Data are available in Appendices H & I. son-in-law. brother or cousin. Given the importance o f the two mayors as chairs o f the local courts.

Casimira Jose de Cuellar. Pedro Martir de Zelaya (Tegucigalpa). Rafael Ferrer. This presentation was partly accomplished by relying on a standardized city layout. Luis Franscico Barrutia y Roma. With astonishingly few exceptions. should not be underestimated. Jose Antonio Batres y Munoz. Juan Miguel Midence (his brothers. The influence o f this right. the captain general. so one way to demonstrate this system was in a consistent and legible architectural rendering. from the grand Asuncion de Guatemala to the smallest Indian village. Basilio and Manuel Jose were aldermen for slightly less than a decade) Manuel Antonio Vasquez y Rivera. Jose Antonio Sicilia y Montoya. For the three cities. Those families with representation on the council or who sought to obtain it participated actively in the selection o f their judges and representatives. these men were: Miguel Ignacio Alvarez de Asturias. Nicolas Obregon and Manuel Jose Pavon y Munoz. Jacinto Villavicencio and Rafael Ypina (Sonsonate). Pedro Jose Aycinena y Larayn. all official settlements. like a human cell. Juan Manuel Alcantara. even today. Francisco Antonio Gonzalez Cerezo. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 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. Joaquin Espinoza. Manuel Diez Clemente. Pedro Juan de Lara. or privilege. (Guatemala). and the church. Jose Vigil. each republica contained within it the elements o f the whole political structure. . and Manuel Carrera. Eugenio Rascon. city government provided for an important amount o f political autonomy for Spaniards. Francisco Guevara y Dongo. Jose Antonio Castanedo. Juan Jacinto Herrera. 81 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. it is possible to enter a rural Guatemalan town and ‘feel’ one’s way to the center along the straight streets that point directly to the city center. the city council was integrated into a network of imperial political power. And. the council. provincial governors. respected the regular gridiron street pattern decreed for the Spanish Americas. With the council seats. Most o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala’s population was illiterate.

82 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Important vecinos. jail. lived next or close to the plaza. while the Indian and mestizo and mulatto inhabitants lived in their own neighborhoods. with the Audience’s courts and offices. with a plaza of 4 solares in the center o f the city. for a discussion o f Spanish urban planning in the Americas and the possible origins o f this physical plant. each with its physical jurisdictions and official functions. Spain and Portugal in the New W orld . and granary. before the rest of the city plots were assigned to the vecinos to build their houses. with the cathedral or parish church on one side separating the governor’s residence and government offices from the city hall. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. on the west. The occupant of the fourth side o f the square varied. unlike the towns o f medieval Europe on which their 35 Santiago’s original layout. and propios o f the city. pp. often beyond the paved streets and whitewashed houses of the city center. . Libro Viejo. p. a fortress. the families o f the Creole elites. and a chapel to Nuestra Senora de Remedios. which also hosted the city’s central market. for the town hall. 30-40 j6 See Lyle McAlister. as ordered by Jorge de Alvarado. Asuncion's plaza had on the east side the cathedral.35 At the heart o f Spanish government in the Americas were governor. and east-west. prison. Notably absent was a visible military presence. The city council received another 4. on the north side of the square. flanked by the archbishop’s palace and the Colegio de Infantes. Compendio. and on the south. as were the imposing compounds o f the principal religious orders. meat shops. Caxas Reales. The principal church received two solares on one side o f the town square. the Royal Customs House (Real Aduana) and Marques de Aycinena. To take one well-known example. some overlapping and others starkly separated/6 Secondary government office buildings. the Royal Palace. Acta. 55. and Mint. and cabildo. seat o f the Captain General.At the heart o f each city was the central plaza. By around 1810. Juarros. palacio and casa de cabildo faced each other across the square. Catholic church. called for streets to run north-south. Additional solares were set aside for a hospital. Central American towns did not fund extensive defensive bulwarks. p. but the individual or offices that occupied it were close to the local power base. 149-50. the Contaduria General. the City Hall. 22 November 1528. were located close by. such as mints or military barracks. 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.

Revoking initial lifetime and hereditary gubernatorial appointments.[without] towers. . 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. 1985). Ross and Gerard J. Robert J. on the coasts. “The Autarkic Colonial Cities o f Central America” in eds. Colonial Cities: essays on urbanism in a colonial context (Boston: M Nijoff. 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. Thus.” 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. Telkamp.”37 The forts of the Kingdom o f Guatemala were constructed where the pirates and English were. p. Thompson (Norman: U.E. 38 Thomas Gage. J. Rather.”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.. 176. ed. they were “open to the surrounding landscape and favoured level valley sites. 44. forts or bulwarks to keep out an aspiring or attempting enemy.” p. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.political system was based.. 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. as Adriaan Van Oss has observed. or gates or passing over any bridge or finding any watch or guard to examine who I was. 1958). 83 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. o f Oklahoma Press. Travels in the New World.S.

131. 39 George A. 1829). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Central America's conquerors did not wait long to be replaced. Murray. governors received their appointments and salaries from the king. From the 1530s onward.branches o f government. Thompson. Narrative o f an Official Visit to Guatemala from Mexico (London: J. p. . with the intention that they would represent the royal will rather than local interests or personal ambition. 84 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.

. Archivo General de Indias). Guatemala 344 (Courtesy.Figure 9: Jurisdiction o f New Guatemala. 1776 1 Source: AGI. ca. 85 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Mapas y Pianos. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

cities and villas had been established. The audiencia was originally established in Gracias a Dios (Honduras). The Guatemalan historian. Guatemala. 73. 86 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. and seventeen from the first foundation o f the city o f Guatemala City de the year 1542. p. “nineteen years from the initiation of the conquest. El Salvador. Scarecrow Press. These later formed the province o f Chiapas. where it presided until independence in 1821. a capitanla general or audiencia called the Kingdom o f Guatemala. See also Book 2. after all. 1972).40 It was. argued that the new political system was created because the conquest was complete.” that the king ordered the unification o f the distinct territories subjugated by Alvarado. 131. 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. 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. In 1549. Mexico. 131-2.41 This “typical Spanish regional government” took its functional names from its two chief political figures—a royally appointed captain general aided by an audience. 41 Fuentes y Guzman. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. or territorial court.. The place-name 40 Fuentes y Guzman. Book 9.Fuentes y Guzman presents this political revolution as a second conquest. Although revolts in southern New Spain led to a reassignment of Yucatan to the Guatemalan audiencia for the last decade o f Spanish rule. Chapter 19. Davila and Montejo into one autonomous administrative district. Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Book 9. 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. NJ. and the number o f inhabitants and inhabited places was increasing. in fact. Middle American Governors (Metuchen. Title 15. Recordacion Florida. Taplin. p. Chapter 19. pp. the Kingdom of Guatemala comprised the territories that would endure throughout the colonial period. Recordacion Florida. After a brief extinction (1563-1568). it moved to Santiago de los Caballeros (Guatemala). and controlled the Yucatan peninsula through Panama. this top-down change had little practical impact. and the national states of Honduras. . .

44 The judges ( oidores) o f the court. The responsibilities o f the chief Spanish authorities were more indirect. “Y mandamos que el Gobemador y Capitan General y Presidente de la real Audiencia de ellas. Santiago de Guatemala. Title 116. came from the city chosen as the capital. and Chiapa(s). devotes Book 11. for regulations concerning interim nominations. 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. notes that among the posts for which this official names temporary replacements are all the governorships. 44 See Book 5. 87 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. and destined Indian laborers to agricultural or other tasks. 9.43 Among other responsibilities. Sonsonate. The captain geneal also conferred titles of governors to indios principales who were able. Costa Rica and Comayagua. . the alcalde mayor o f Tegucigalpa. p. In addition to serving as the chief military.eventually settled upon. appointed many lower-ranking officials and made interim appointments when provincial governorships became vacant. Recopilacion (1535). while the audience administered justice 43 Law 10. tenga.42 We have seen the extensive gubernatorial powers and responsibilities o f the cabildos. Chapter 4. Title 2. use y exerza por si solo la gobemacion de aquella tierra. taken from the Recopilacion. Fuentes y Guzman. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. administrative and political matters. he confirmed clerical appointments. meaning that decisions and appeals went directly to Spain. Verapaz. The Recopilacion de Indias makes crystal clear in this law and that of Book 5. He also confirmed elections of mayors. provinces o f San Salvador and San Miguel. 207. Recordacion Florida. The Cabildo in Peru Under the Bourbons. the captaincy-general o f Guatemala was praetorial. Title 15. Law 2.” 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. Zapotitlan (Suchitepeques). as well as serving as 43 John Preston Moore. in turn. p. In Spanish. asi como la tiene nuestro Virey de la Nueva Espafia. Law 4. Book 2. financial and political officer o f the kingdom. “buena gobemacion y policia. Chapters 1-4 through to the responsibilities of the Captain General (Supermo gobiemo). Although technically appended to the Viceroyalty of New Spain. oversaw implementation of royal orders and advised the captain general on financial. Book 5 (1603-1633) that the president had the government (gobierao) in his charge. Title 9. including the governors and captains genearl of Nicaragua.” Book 2. Guatemala. Recopilacion. and governors o f Soconusco. y de todo su distrito.

religious or military improvements. or could not enforce a decision. The ayuntamiento o f Guatemala City.appeals court for civil and criminal cases originating throughout the numerous districts o f the audiencia. both authorities dealt with cases in the second instance. cases that had been adjudicated by city officials or governors. In either case. and forwarded reports and recommendations to the Crown for political. The imposition o f such authorities on top o f the city councils established at conquest merely added a cushion between cabildo and king. Together. economic. whose outcome compelled at least one party to demand a reconsideration o f the original decision. with the exception o f the capital. 88 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. and his Council o f the Indies. president and audiencia settled disputes from each district within the kingdom. as capital o f the kingdom with official and unofficial links to all districts o f the isthmus. When the two authorities could not agree. weighty testimonials that sometimes numbered thousands o f pages sailed for Spain for resolution by the king. that is. found itself in conflict with the captain general and audiencia on the administration o f the territories within its jurisdiction. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and did not interfere in the day-to-day work o f the city councils. .

p.Government & Society. from local nomination (CG) Election/Purchase Royal appointment Royal appointment Royal appointment Royal appt. Within those provinces. Sources: Wortman. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and in districts to which no governor was appointed—principally Chiapas. Franciscan.) Election/Purchase Local authorities Several convents operated at different points during the colonial period.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. Table 13. including: San Juan de Dios. 1982. Van Oss.2. whereas the captain general situated in the capital shared responsibility for all the provinces with the audiencia. from local nomination (Bish. 1982. . the formal establishment o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala led to the creation of inferior governors o f smaller provinces within the kingdom. 239.Table 2. their reach was merely provincial. Honduras and Costa Rica. In addition to the captain general in Guatemala City. However. and held the additional title of captains general. Mercedarian. These officials were also meant to play an important military role protecting the coasts o f the isthmus against pirates and British incursions. Catholic Colonialism. San Salvador and 89 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Dominican. the king named governors o f the provinces o f Nicaragua. Jesuits. However. Province) Provincial (Religious) Parish Priest (County) Friar Royal appointment Royal appointment Royal appointment Royal appt.

Yet the change was not absolute. . The Spanish part o f the city name (usually a saint) was not used in provincial names. 47 See Footnote44. and supervise. also carried out the governor’s duties. the activities of the local town councils. Recopilacion. In some cases. the city mayors held the official titles o f corregidores o f their jurisdiction.Guatemala—the 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. and in addition to their responsibilities in city administration. as we have seen. Book 5 o f the Recopilacion assigned alcaldes mayores to cities and their partidos and corregidores to cabeceras o f pueblos principales de Indios. they did not welcome the competition.46 The number and type of districts—and governors—within 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). including those o f kingdom capital Guatemala City and the city o f San Salvador. 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. Laws 9 and 10. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. These provinces took their names from the original Spanish cities and principal Indian pueblos that became their respective capitals. Title 9. at least in theory. Title 1. 90 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Since the city councils had carried out these often-profitable tasks without interference until 1542. 46 Several laws discussed the corregidor's function as tribute collector. assign Indian labor. See Book 8. or cabeceras.A S The governors o f these districts—alcaldes mayores and corregidores— were appointed by the king and were assigned to collect Indian tribute.47 45 Law 1.

alcaldias mayores and corregimientos established in the sixteenth century retained their distinctive titles and local governments.50 The third arm o f the colonial government. the hierarchy that distinguished between alcaldes mayores and corregidores fell into disuse. responsible for the secular parishes in the kingdom. p. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Title 2.. 1993). Tuxtla. the Council of the Indies argued to divide the alcaldia mayor o f Chiapas because there were ‘too many pueblos’ for one governor. Historia General de Centroamerica. Guatemala had its first bishop. see Stephen Webre. “Poder e ideologia: La Consolidacion del sistema colonial (1542-1700). . In 1760. the Bourbons acknowledged this elision by calling all new districts alcaldias mayores. The king commissioned a report from the audiencia o f Guatemala. 91 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. v. confirming an interim appointment o f Spanish-bom Guatemala city regidor Col. 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. regardless o f whether the district had a Spanish city. For a recent example of this argument. By 1539. but had their own government. The religious provinces coincided with secular districts.Over time. By 1534.g. ed. 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. 2. who had been priest to Alvarado’s conquistadors since 1530. Chiapas).49 Yet. 157. El Regimen Colonial (1524-/570) (Madrid: FLACSO. 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. the gobernaciones. 49 Guatemala 446. Ciudad Real (Chiapas) and Trujillo (Honduras) also had dioceses.48 In the 1700s. reviewed it and in 1768 authorized erection o f the alcaldia mayo o f Tuxtla. Ereccion de la alcaldia mayor de Tuxtla (Chiapas).” in Julio Pinto Soria. Francisco Marroquin. Law 3 (1550. Juan Oliver to a five-year term as governor. or not (e. was the church. 1575. following the secular imperial agents and the local institution. Leon (Nicaragua). as well as chapter-houses 48 Book 5.

with the priest. the city mayors carried the additional title o f teniente de alcalde mayor in the governor’s absence and served as his interim replacement. and resided in a district capital (cabecera ). for the city. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Spanish colonial authority congregated in the cabeceras o f each province. Guatemala City. a priest was responsible for a series o f parishes. Generally. Chapters land 2. in 1802. . and dispatched priests to serve in the countryside. such comisionados were limited to a coadjutor for the priest. see Adriaan Van O ss. Generally. Those who could appoint agents to help with their work outside the termino o f the city did so. Title 3. 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. cathedral chapter and city council shared the capital. For example. “Parochial Origins” and “Parish Structure.52 It was not unusual. Sonsonate mayor Jacinto Villavicencio acted as 92 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. several lieutenants (tenientes) for the governor. The practice in Central America was for city mayors to step in during any absence.o f the important Dominican. Laws 7 & 8 o f the Recopilacion called for mayors to replace governors in the case o f the latter’s death in office or permanent departure. The bishops.” 52 B ook 5.51 The overlay o f religious institutions on top of the secular municipal network served to consolidate the regional developments o f the conquest. Catholic Colonialism . or rural constables. commuting to distant settlements at irregular intervals. if there were several Spanish towns within a province. and the two alcaldes de la santa hermandad. governor and any treasury officials cohabitating in much the same way as president. audience. If the provincial capital was a Spanish town. the members o f the city council or Indian justicia. Mercedarian and Franciscan religious orders. with their ecclesiastic councils (cabildo eclesiastico ) resided in provincial capitals.

as well. was to teniente alcalde mayor in the absence of the propietario. behaved as if it were a capital. . Chandler. the Hapsburg monarchy. governor and city was adequate to balance power and influence in the conquest-era Americas in such a way as to favor the king. AMS. By the 1680s. it behooves us first to consider how the system o f city.. Manuel Antonio Basques i Ribera. Charles II. One o f the most important achievements of the last Hapsburg king. 11 March 1802. 54 Mark A. despite its weakness. In particular. AGI Guatemala 437. recognized the need for reform. as Burkholder and Chandler have clearly demonstrated. a regidor and alcalde provincial o f the Villa of Choluteca. Yet before engaging in analysis o f the tools and impact of those reforms. was also teniente in the alcaldia mayor o f Tegucigalpa in the early eighteenth century. every Spanish city and town. 1977). Manuel Coton. by the eighteenth century. it undertook a series of small measures designed to increase royal influence and control in its distant kingdoms. Alejandro Ramirez al Alcalde Ordinario de Sonsonate.5'1 In many ways.S. From Impotence to Authority: The Spanish Crown and the American Audiencias. and the principal Indian settlements.. 53 To take just one example. o f Missouri Press. 93 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. a situation that would complicate political development in the nineteenth century. If the original political system of church. as Miles Wortman has argued. governor and church functioned in the kingdom o f Guatemala two hundred years into Spanish rule. Caja 1. Guatemala. f50. 1687-1808 (Columbia: U. Seccion Antigua Rexidor Sencillo de la Villa de Tegucigalpa. Asturian Cristobal Santelices. 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. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Burkholder and D. Remate en D. authority was fixed firmly in the overseas territories. 1792.

Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This devoted bureaucrat collected.5.compile and index the diverse rules that governed the acts o f Spanish authorities in the Americas for the first time.56 Whereas the responsibilities o f an audience and a viceroy or captain general each merited their own book (Books Two and Three respectively). Toma 2a. did not distinguish qualitatively between city government and provincial government.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. BN Sala Cervantes. and the military. the government o f Indians.y 8 de la Recopilacion de Leyes de las Indias. Recopilacion de Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias.’ including the responsibilities o f the viceroys and captains general. A copy o f a 1646 and 1659 version of de la Calle’s obra maestra can be found in Madrid’s Biblioteca Nacional. . 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. equally important. Separate sections (titulos) in Book Four provided regulation for discovery. books Four and Five together contained the regulations for city and provincial government. statistics and cedulas on each district’s government for use of the Council in its determinations. The final two books on financial management o f the Indies occupied one and a half of the three tomes making up the Recopilacion. 1791. The work marked an achievement in government in and o f itself. standardizing knowledge about the responsibilities o f each branch o f government.the ‘dominio y jurisdiccion real de las Indias. the Council o f the Indies and the audiencias. 4th ed. the control o f anti-social behavior in the form o f gaming. pacification. 94 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. from the Council and the various audiencias.6. vagrancy and mixed blood.).55 The organization o f the books reveals that as late as 1680. 4a Impresion (Madrid. 1791. as well as several volumes of drafts. The clusters on population dealt with ss Published in 1680. n. MS 1447 and MS 3023.p. in the Recopilacion de leyes de los Reynos de las Indias (1680. S 6 Four books dealt with: the church. between around 1640 and 1654. population and governance. Indice de los titulos que se contienen en los Libros 4.7. Only the introduction was printed. Madrid 1943). Spanish ministers still perceived o f the city council as the basic institution o f Spanish government in the Indies and.

Although enjoined from exercising jurisdiction over native populations. revised and expanded in 1805-1807.. 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. The aldermen on a city council had lifetime positions. except where the rural constables (alcaldes de la hermandad) o f the city exercised their authority. In the case o f death or departure o f a governor. . Governors presided over council meetings. reimpresa ultimamente en el de 1775. Yet.founding cities not provinces. decretos. just a series of exhortations on how to behave to each other and to respect each other’s joint and separate responsibilities. Further reproduction prohibited without 1567. but could not interfere in local elections or insist that the meetings take place in his house. 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. city mayors could judge cases between Spaniards and Indians. The full title of this work is Novisima recopilacion de las leyes de Espana. town council and governor. ordenes y resoluciones 95 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Book Five combined titles on the specific divisions and obligations o f each type o f jurisdiction and official. Novisima Recopilacion. the city mayor could temporarily take his 5' A similar view is clear also in the 1775 compilation of laws for peninsular Spain. cedulas. y incorporan las pragmaticas. The governor was responsible for ensuring order the countryside. while each function received a separate section.. dividia en X II libros: en que se reforma la recopilacion. including the different types o f governor and mayors.57 The individual laws reflected an attempt to build checks and balances into a system that was supposed to be mutually reinforcing. whereas governorships lasted from five to ten years.

Law 14. Title 3. Book 4. audience and the Guatemala City town council to ensure their full distribution and execution. it was the injunctions that no captain general or governor could erect a city or town. It would be impossible to separate out the work o f any one part of the bureaucracy from the rest. Important royal decrees were sent separately to captain general. Law those in whom they had deposited their staff o f office headed the sessions in their place. y otras providencias no recopiladas. 13. 12. Title 9. Book 5. Book 4. For each session. Laws 2-4. y expedidas hasta el de 1804. Laws 6. 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. From the attendance it is clear that mayors not only attended but chaired each council meeting. 60 Recopilacion . Book 5. Title 3. Unexpected vacancies were filled from within council ranks. Sonsonate and Tegucigalpa. Title 8. which would separate a lesser place from its cabecera . 14. only the king could alter the institutional organization o f a territory. 1805-1829). . 8. Title 8.59 In other words. mandada form ar p o r el senor don Carlos IV (Madrid: s. 11. 7-10. Law 7. 59 Recopilacion . Book 4. 58 Recopilacion . 96 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. See the books of acts for Guatemala City.n. Governors and mayors both attended council meetings in the eighteenth century. Book 4. the secretary noted those anending. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Title 10. Laws 5. 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?). but the governor could not name interim city councilors. 8. If anything underlined the city’s autonomy from structural forms of gubernatorial meddling. in their absence.

and the captain general and audience (appointed officials). with no novelty (novedad) until the Council o f the Indies had been informed and taken a decision. as capital o f the kingdom was required by the king to provide reports on issues outside its jurisdiction and expected. it is useful to rethink what “local” government meant in the Spanish imperial context. Title 8. 62 Recopilacion. in fact. Law 19 (1578). were the archbishop (church). . Guatemala City. 97 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the Hapsburg monarchy. or a straight line of authority. to take 61 Recopilacion. Title 3. alcaldes de la santa hermandad. Thus. the chief town council. On the top tier. Bearing in mind this contemporary equivalence o f alcalde ordinario. Rather than separating Spanish government in the Kingdom o f Guatemala into two opposing sides o f local and imperial. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. let us consider each as one side o f a two-tiered pyramid. Book 5. Guatemala City (city).62 This permission kept the immense municipal jurisdictions intact in the Kingdom o f Guatemala. Book 4. was more concerned with limiting pretensions o f externally appointed governors than those o f perpetual councils. upon whose royal decisions the Recopilacion was based. until the 1750s. mayors would keep the jurisdiction that they had held in the past.the contrary. and alcalde mayor.61 Custom. one law stated that in the case o f doubt. was something the Recopilacion emphasized should be respected if local practice conflicted with official law. These three institutions had recognized authorities that extended throughout the kingdom. Law 6.

governor and church. 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 governors—whose lack of roots encouraged them to wrest as much money from Indian tributaries as 63 In 1777. and governors.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. AGI Guatemala 621. 98 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. unbalance or change. The space within the pyramid fell within the jurisdiction o f all the authorities. that required a kingdom-wide presence. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. all of the political institutions drew their legitimacy and their authority. Together. the whole was solid and difficult to dislocate. each institution was incomplete. such as tax collection. In fact. for example.63 On the second tier were the provincial and local authorities: the bishops and priests. Separate. each authority was connected to the others at its own level. unchanged. archbishop and Salvadoran officials to provide recommendations on how to reform San Salvador’s provincial government. it was only together that church. as well as to those on the top and base. it also asked Guatemala City’s cabildo for input. From the base of the Spanish monarchy. These figures’ legal jurisdiction was restricted to one province or district. the fiscal o f the Council o f the Indies asked not only the high court.on administrative tasks. Regardless. a situation that could give rise to conflict as well as cooperation. Although separate and definable. until the reformist era o f Carlos HI in 1759. endured. . city and governors comprised the active arm o f Spanish government in the Americas. city councils. the political structure based on a tripartite division o f authority between city.

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. 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.possible—and 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. 108-110. authorized by the king” and “ravenous lions feeding on the poor. From the territory. alcaldes mayores. and suggesting that Indians govern themselves. on their own initiative and supported with instructions from the Crown. They called the bureaucrats “official thieves.” the captain general and audiencia o f Guatemala. interim decisions which sometimes favored a city and sometimes the governor or audiencia or captain general that the city was generally opposing. In one case that “scandalized the kingdom.” Cabildo de la Villa de Jerez del Valle de Choluteca. cases dragged on for up to twenty years. pp. and corregidores. 99 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.. even after a new and reformist dynasty occupied the Spanish throne in 1700. 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. Documentos Coloniales de Honduras. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. alcalde ordinario and alcalde mayor remained equivalent players within the Spanish gubernatorial hierarchy. in Leyva. saying that one Spanish official created more problems than 40 or 50 Spaniards living among the Indians. 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 Often. 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.. ed.. 12 de noviembre 1602. The contents o f individual cases underline that well into the eighteenth century. .

67 However. by 1751 the alcaldes mayores were collecting at least 35. it becomes clear that all parties were acting in self-interest. captain general and audience had united to insist on the reform. The city’s protests. The cabildo appealed each time. The sale was to both sides' advantage.000 pesos annually. The cabildo could not argue with the evidence that royal officials would be more efficient tribute collectors than the city mayors had been. which clearly gave the municipal position weight when they were considered in Spain. In fact. . Through the evidence from these changes. more than double the estimate The new alcaldias mayores o f Chimaltenango.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. 6' AGI Guatemala 445. seats that had been vacant for up to twenty years were sold to eleven prominent men o f the capital.68 More importantly. which continued for over a decade. 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. The case is made up o f more than 100 pieces and 3000 pages. at the time o f the dismemberment o f the corregimiento. 25 April 1751. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the city had been unable to prevent it. 68 In 1764.for the king. Heredia also helped the 66 The entire case can be found in AHN Consejos 20950-20953. Heredia received credit for increasing local interest in 100 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. and Sacatepequez & Amatitan were slated to bring in 18. not just the council. resulted in decisions to grant various-sized jurisdictions.092 pesos respectively just for the semi­ annual tribute collected in December (tercio de navidad). 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.075 and 17. and its was interest in increased revenue that had convinced king Ferdinand VI to institute the reform.000 pesos in 1749. 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 city’s favor. Instruccion Reservada a Joseph Vazquez Prego.

Juan Gonzalez Bustillo and Basilio de Villarrasa were friends with Creole corregidor Estanislao Croquer. 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. Pedro Ortiz de Letona. Pieza 3. 101 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1764: Representacion de la ciudad de Guatemala. Pedro Ignacio de Loayza. 69 AHN Consejos 20952. “Politica y comercio. could choose the men who would. . and Pieza 94. and they claimed that the others had formed a ‘partido’ against the ayuntamiento. f 174. The unconnected city council members were Simon Larrazabal. Juan Fermin Aycinena. and by marriage. Letter o f Ayuntamiento. serve as interim alcaldes mayores of Chimaltenango. Fernando Palomo and Cayetano Pavon—were related to fiscal Felipe Romana's wife. to Croquer. 29 November 1760. 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. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. That some o f the local families were members of the town council meant that. Guatemala 29 August 1766. through election o f the alcaldes ordinarios. who had personal ties to the men they had named as corregidores in the city’s place. as well as to local families. Manuel Batres. Audiencia judges Manuel Diaz. Felipe Manrrique. All four judges were friends o f corregidor Manuel Plazaola and had spent over a week at Croquer’s country house to celebrate his saint’s day. see Jose Manuel Santos Perez.” Chapter 2. permanent involvement in government. only half the council members waged the battle.69 After twenty years. in direct contravention o f royal policy. does not relate the sale to the ongoing battle to recover the corregimiento. Pieza 55. The wife o f court fiscal Phelipe Romana was sister to Croquer’s wife. on some occasions. For a discussion o f the mechanics and negotiation of the sale. under Heredia’s complacent eye. The new regidores. and were ‘disunited’ from its body (cuerpo). and Ventura Najera.council unmask the duplicity o f the judges o f the audience. the city did not get its territory back. Also AHN Consejos 20953. but had succeded in establishing a precedent for having councilors or their relatives named to the important new corregimientos and had proved that the city’s interests weighed as heavily with the Crown as the recommendations o f a governor or audience. however. This discussion. The other four regidores — Basilio Vicente Roma. In other words.

for their part. Also in the 1750s. in cabildo 1764-1770 1774-1793 1812-1819 1790-1791 1805. at the outset. 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. Justicia Mayor. Guatemala-bom Cristobal Galvez wanted to recover his position as alcalde mayor o f the province where he had both commercial and land interests. 1811-2 1781-1810 1786-1792 1812-1819 (1790-1819) Ignacio Batres y Munoz (not a member of the cabildo. he left as 102 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. and married into the family Baron de Barrieza. the same. Years in the cabildo of Guatemala = First and Last years. Antigua Jose Maria Martinez Zevallos 1801-5 (sec) Sacatepequez 1811-6 Sacatepequez Jose Najera y Batres (son: Ventura Najera) 1827-1840 1816: Into. 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. In 1688. Chimaltenango and Sacateplquez. . a post his descendants would hold repeatedly until the erectioin of San Salvador into an intendancy in 1786.Table 2. The Galvez family’s interest in the province went back almost a hundred years.70 The city councils. 1776: Diego del Barco 1775-1795 1775 was Tte. wanted to 70 Bartolome Galvez de Corral arrived in Guatemala from Malaga. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.2: Alcaldes Mayores. Sources: See Appendix G. San Miguel. At his death in 1715. his three brothers served from:) Nicolas de Obregon (removed for misuse 1770-1802 Sacatepequez 1771-1788 of tribute funds). he became Alcalde Mayor o f San Salvador. Cristobal’s Spanish father’s first occupied the same office in 1688. The interests of the merchants and landowners were. 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. the three ayuntamientos o f the alcaldia mayor o f San Salvador—San Salvador.

who also were assessed hefty fines. The native son Chamorro unsurprisingly found the accusatory evidence more convincing than the governor’s defense. 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. such cooperation had existed. to investigate the cities’ charges o f the new governor’s misdemeanors. 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. many vecinos o f San Salvador. served as alcaldes mayores until the 1780s. Torre proved the falseness o f the accusations and vindicated himself. per the decision of the audiencia o f 27 November 1767. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. '* AHN Consejos 20967. Apparently.” Chapter 3. during the Galvez tenure. and alcaldes de la hermandad had shared in the power to govern the countryside. and ordered him to pay one third o f the trial costs. 42 ff. Bemabe de la Torre de Trassierra. assign Indian laborers to city works and indigo workshops (obrajes). Francisco Chamorro. a decade later. 103 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1772. The audience proved incapable o f collecting the fines assessed against the city councilors who had peijured themselves during the case. When. 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. The decision suspended Torre for three years for abuses in repartimiento o f goods. The rest o f the costs were to come from the accusers. alcaldes ordinarios. . naming other relatives when they were unable to preside themselves. An initially uninterested audiencia in 1757 assigned a San Miguel-bom member o f the Guatemalan elite. “Politica y comercio.000 pesos.return to a time when alcalde mayor. Santos Perez. Pieza 7. fronting for the Galvez. the damage had already been done. So. sell goods to tribute-paying Indian communities and control the province’s mulatto militiamen. the city councils accused recently-arrived governor Bemabe de la Torre o f graft and mistreatment o f the Indian population. His sons Cristobal and Manuel Galvez y Corral (regidor in Santiago in 1742).

'4 '2 This case in its entirety can be found in AHN Guatemala 20967-20968. The governor himself died. salaried agents.73 The best the affronted audiencia could do was to name a disinterested lieutenant captain general and justicia mayor. he had named Galvez as governor in Torre’s 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. that in 1774. Thanks to Sylvia Casasola of UCLA for the family information. 3 AHN Consejos 20967. Pieza 2. Testimonio. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Madrid. destitute. when ordered to name an “impartial” interim governor the captain general named Melchor de Baron—the Galvez’ first cousin. it is unsurprising then. Melchor was the son of the Galvez’ mother’s sister (aunt). Bernardo de Mencos. to try to impose some outside control and observation on the local authorities. 6 April 1779. rather than makeshift and ad hoc adjustments would be required to change the balance o f power from local landholders and merchants. Informe de la Audiencia de Guatemala. During the extended trial. and implemented in the “provisional establishment o f la Hermita” (soon to be Asuncion) on 22 September o f the same year. f lv. Maria Antonia Baron de Barrieza and Capt. Francisco Aldama. to the Crown and its directly-appointed. with their control o f the town council and influence over the governors. 104 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. '* AGI Guatemala 621. before he heard about his vindication. alcalde mayor included. . 2v.less important than money. The royal order to name an interim governor was dated 1 April 1774.72 Given the poor example provided by the king. in 1771. Aldama’s detailed and despairing report on the status of municipal and gubernatorial complicity made absolutely clear why an overhaul to the system. f.

Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mapas y Pianos. 105 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1778 Wfl*fi Source: AGI. . San Salvador. Archivo General de Indias).Figure 10: Alcaldia Mayor. Guatemala 298 (Courtesy.

In the Guatemala City case. When the local initiative vanished. both cases demonstrate the state o f government in mid­ eighteenth century Guatemala. 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. the reform itself would come under attack. privilege and stability. sifting through the pages in which opposing sides proclaimed their own lofty motivations and disparaged their rivals’ as self-interested and profit-driven. due to a change o f personnel or their interests. the Crown would support locally promoted initiative. whether reform or status quo ante was the worse o f the two evils. The Crown.When taken together. The end result. or a shift to the balance between the different representatives o f Spanish authority in a local environment. 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. or any other reason. as in the case o f the battle over the 106 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. either among the officials in the Americas or between those of Spain and those overseas. He also had to judge. In this case. Instead. winning royal approval because the change would increase tribute collections at little cost to the Crown. faced with a dilemma. the early Bourbon rulers began with no systemic plan with which to restructure local relations. Among points made clear in the Guatemala City case. the first is that for all its initial resolution to enact change. . then would try to reconcile two competing and incompatible goals. as opportunity presented itself. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Such attack often packaged reform as undermining precedent.

The form o f the reform was respected: the two corregimientos survived. The Bourbon rulers. But its content was voided. with the same authority they had enjoyed before. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. . with its privileges and powers. which at times required protection rather than attack in order to ensure political and economic stability. 107 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. as an important element to the Spanish political system. Second. not to fortify any one branch so that it might impose its will consistently on the other sides o f the pyramid. Instead. the attention accorded to the cities’ petitions in both cases reinforces the deep roots o f city government. was often a Pyrrhic victory. as the local elite individuals and families who had used the council to oppose the dismemberment received nominations to serve as the new governors. understood very well the importance o f city government’s position and permanence. the Bourbons hoped to nourish a mythical equilibrium. on a case-by-case basis. whether they saw it or not. and their officials in the Council o f the Indies.Valley o f Guatemala. The goal was to maintain a balance that made the system work. 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. in which the forces deployed by the royal hand worked to achieve the Crown’s ends. 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 swift punishment o f the audiencia that followed the city’s proof of that body’s local interests makes clear that. and would not consistently support governor and president and audience against it.

Finally.Third. Short-term economic interests repeatedly undermined long-term politicoeconomic goals. ff. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 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.75 Compared to an alliance between three city governments and one extensively connected capitaline family. 21v-30v. an individual outsider like Torre had small chance o f implementing policies against the interests or will o f the local power networks. Reform overseas had to have consistent backing in the peninsula to take root. See particularly testimonies of curates Manuel Roche (Comalapa). and their interest in local land and labor resources.” that led to equivalence between governor and local elites in terms o f control o f populations and land. no matter how well-connected. That Guatemala City’s 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 city’s position is but one example o f the benefits o f such diffuse networks. 108 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. . something the kings o f Spain failed to institutionalize as the wars o f the eighteenth century drained the royal coffers. Amatitanes). ff. Yet whereas the judges o f the audiencia o f the 1730s and 1750s fought tooth and '5 AHN Consejos 20952. time was generally on the side o f the city. both Aldama and the audiencia could point to one source of trouble. 1760. 13v-21. 66-70. The local kinship and power networks. Jose AntonioAlvarez (San Martin Xilotepeque). royal leadership was essential to any sustained reformist effort. extended further and changed more slowly than did those o f the officials. and Manuel Barreir (San Juan Alotenango. the cities’ “monstrous jurisdiction. ff. Pieza 56. In the case o f San Salvador.

Informe de la Audiencia de Guatemala. Charles m had to resolve the conundrum o f taxes or tranquility. 6 April 1779. Informe de la Audiencia de Guatemala. when not originating directly from Your Majesty. San Salvador. to be the capital o f one part. San Miguel.77 Redistricting the corregimiento of Guatemala City had not changed the fundamental operations o f government in that '6 AGI Guatemala 621. the audiencia decided against issuing a challenge “from knowledge o f the inconveniences that any novelty tends to produce.nail to limit the jurisdiction o f the alcaldes o f the capital. Since the court had initially assigned the reason for inefficient government to the province’s “multiplicity o f judges. When the cabildos insisted on their privileges. the 1779 audiencia shamefacedly admitted its incapacity to attempt the same reforms in the provinces. For effective realignment o f power. The audiencia's solution. Bureaucrats in the Americas seemed unable to conceive o f fundamental change. 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. with both cabildo and governors responding to the needs o f the monarchy. The only real innovation might have been a governor for Santa Ana. with 327 pesos going to the governor of San Salvador and 250 pesos each to those o f Santa Ana Grande and San Miguel. . Both Aldama and the audience recommended breaking the power o f the elites by dividing San Salvador into three separate districts and reducing the city’s jurisdiction. although it suggested three new jurisdictions. 6 April 1779. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.”76 In both o f these cases. with 47 pueblos. with 19. f.” it is unclear how adding new judges would subtract the problem. like Aldama's was to divide the province/alcaldia mayor o f San Salvador. lv. with 42. 7 AGI Guatemala 621. such royal support was not forthcoming. and Santa Ana Grande. The salary of 827 pesos allocated to the single alcalde mayor would be split. the only Salvadoran town with no cabildo 109 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.

worked through alliances. To make reform take hold. 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. could counter the maneuverings o f local interests as expressed in the cabildo. united. Instead. Set up to ensure that no one institution gained too much authority over any resource or group. . the monarch counted on a fungible balance o f power to unmask and control individual interests. had changed. President and audience. this system was not an efficient one for increasing revenue for the monarch. however. the financial reforms o f the 1760s paved the way for a 110 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Thus. opposed. President and audience. somehow the old relationships of interdependency had to be broken. Although different players had different stakes in. all had vested local interests. Polite. Unfortunately. The Crown understood that ‘particular’ motivations could undermine royal efforts to benefit the ‘public good’ or common cause. 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. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. could expose and limit abuse o f authority by externally appointed Spanish officials. The Hapsburg imperial system. The needs of the monarchy. this system still worked to specifications two hundred years after implementation.district either. located thousands o f leagues away. and different commitments to Guatemala. as inherited by the Bourbons. Charles Ill’s first attempts to do this.

however. would still operate in the Central American countryside. The same three agents. The Bourbon reformer’s two major projects are the subject o f the next two chapters. . Charles III and his advisers had learned. Better government would mean more government and the creation of new centers o f power.more systematic overhaul o f the entire system in the1780s. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 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. Historians have characterized such reforms as centralizing. after making the mistake of testing as he had in Guatemala and Salvador. with the goal of altering the fundamental structure o f the symbiosis between cabildo and alcalde mayor. City government. that a shakeup o f the entire system was the only way to bring about durable change to meet long-term goals. What would have changed would simply have been the number o f each. with the same responsibilities. was not the main target of these reforms: it was the governor who found himself expendable. Ill Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. and cabildo and audiencia and captain general.

. 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. 112 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Directing his attentions not at the town councils. in the early 1760s. Instruction e ordenanza de intendentes de Buenos Ayres (1782) and Instruction e ordenanza de intendentes de Nueva Espana (1786).1 The 1Article 1.S. see Mark A Burkholder and D. 1687-1808 (Columbia: University o f Missouri Press. 1977). between 1785 and 1787. and. consolidation o f small provinces into intendancies was well underway throughout the Americas. Historians often emphasize the “centralization” o f the Bourbon reforms. The word “centralization” has consistently been applied to Bourbon reforms by historians like John Lynch. seeking reports from the different kingdoms of the Americas on ways to redistrict territories and revamp government. implemented in the Kingdom o f Guatemala. the king then turned his attention to broader governmental reforms. This chapter suggests that. presumably because of the territorial consolidations that went along with financial reorganization. For early discussion o f the emphasis on retaking control o f the audiencias. he first. but at networks that involved local inhabitants and royal officials.Chapter 3 The Bourbon Town Council & the Spanish State: Uniformity and Regionalism Part 1: The First Reforms: Taxation and Real Hacienda. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 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. From impotence to authority: the Spanish Crown and the American audiencias. With increased revenues assured. 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. Chandler. By the 1780s.

El Reino de Guatemala durante el Gobiemo de Antonio Gonzalez Saravia. rather than the entire Bourbon program. or. p.” Miles Wortman applied the term more sparingly only to the establishment of intendancies. The intendancy reforms. 1982). Government and Society (New York: Columbia University Press. systematization. 1700-1808 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 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. uniformar. and economic head o f the kingdom found competition in the four intendants whose similar powers within their territories. 1801-1811 (Guatemala: Comision Universitaria Guatemalteca de Conmemoracion del Quinto Centenario del Descubrimiento de America. Yet for each new financial reform. in a word. the period after the 1760s witnessed more creation o f state and city government in Central America than had been experienced since the conquest. with its own regional bureaucracy. 166. More government meant more government at the local level. . 1993). efficiency and increased oversight. once the unquestioned political. ' 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. Thus. The latter writes that the goal o f the Bourbons was to “centralizar. and to leave the independent alcaldias mayores and corregimientos in the hands o f their governors and town councils.2 A similar process threatened the power o f the principal Spanish cities. as well as at the center. preferring to consolidate the conquest provinces which had always benefitted from regional government. a new directorate was created. racionalizar. 1989) and Bemabe Fernandez Hernandez. more government and the uniform institutions and mechanisms o f government. while the Bourbons Bourbon Spain. Miles Wortman. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. y mejorar el sistema gubemativo de Espana y sus colonias. In short. rather than a unified economic system. p 60.Bourbon reformers prized transparency. however. military. did not bring all the disparate municipal districts o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala under new central governments. 113 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. The captain general.

“The Bourbon Reforms. 114 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. whereas other authors like Fisher and Moore underline local opposition. 70. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. El Reino de Guatemala . . & J. “Intendants and Cabildos. ed. regionalizing tendencies o f the Bourbon reform program and localized response to it. By looking at the homogenizing. 65. The Cabildo in Peru under the Bourbons: A study in the decline and resurgence o f local government in the Audiencia o f Lima. Government and Society in Colonial Peru: The Intendant System. 59. 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. NC: Duke University Press. John Preston Moore. but their deputies. as perhaps better conceived as a new stage in long-running or revived local jockeyings for local or regional power. 1994) 4 See. 1966). 1770-1796. and the Struggle for Power in Yucatan. He has focused on city resentment not of intendants. also thought to be a universal reaction to a proliferation o f broadly-powered governors.” and John Lynch. 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. has also emphasized the deprivation of powers “long held and valued” as a result o f the Bourbon reforms. City Councils.R. “Yucatan.5 In short. the subdelegados. See for example Robert W. they also turned over the implementation o f government into more and more dispersed hands.. Patch. Patch. 1770-1796.” p.4 Part o f that better understanding includes revisiting the assertion o f local resentment o f intendants. Mexico in the Age o f Democratic Revolutions. 1750-1850 (Boulder: Lynn Rienner Publishers... 1700-1824 (Durham. Fisher. 1700-1808. 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.consolidated and strengthened state power.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. Fernandez Hernandez. p. Bourbon Spain. 1970) especially Chapter 8. for example. however.” in Jaime E. 1784-1814 (New York: Oxford University Press. Rodriguez O.

188. 186. p. p. 7 Cited in Maravall. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1991). 6 Jose Antonio Maravall. the goal was to achieve “a constitution o f government that leaves the king absolute power to do all the good he desires. Estudios de la historia. 456. 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. “all depends on royal authority. 453. from whom would emanate the laws which would impose the values o f the Enlightenment—utility. indivisible.” In other words. Government and Society in Colonial Peru. the projects of reform did not propose to alter the fundamental relationship between king as law-giver and people as receiver of monarchical edicts. and other branches o f the government simply implemented. 115 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 9 Maravall. p. prosperity and happiness—on Spanish society. Estudios de la historia. 171. insuperable and could not govern poorly. “in the administrative and theoretical writings o f the period. p.6 Power was unique.The Bourbon Reforms The political theorists o f Bourbon Spain agreed that political power resided in the king. Translated into reformist practice. 195.”7 For Campomanes. Estudios de !a historia del pensamiento espanol (siglo XVIII) (Madrid: Biblioteca Mondadori. 8 Maravall. Estudios de la historia. 455-456. In the words o f minister Bernardo Ward.”9 Uniformity in the era o f the Count of Floridablanca was to make o f a motley collection o 5 According to Fisher. and Fisher.” in which the king and his ministers legislated. p. pp. for good government was the only option for the ‘coproprietor’ o f the land—the king. 452.The Cabildo in Peru under the Bourbons. “uniform” and “uniformity” are terms repeated ad nauseum (saciedad ). As Jose Antonio de Maravall has written. SeeMoore. when cabildos came to demand ‘the restoration o f rights’what they were really seeking was the power to control that which the intendants had created. . including the right to establish residence. the rights o f citizenship.

the first such interventions came with the establishment o f intendancies in the 1710s. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Visitor-General o f New Spain (1765-1771) (Berkeley: University of California Press.o f kingdoms. 456. institutional reform began and spread much later. and military administration. p. it is the great foundation in the art o f calculation. p. Leon de Arroyal wrote that “equality in the division of Provinces is the cement o f good economic civil. 116 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. later minister of the Indies. principally under the leadership o f Charles HI between 1759 and 1788. had the Council divided into three chambers.”10 This political formula o f unity and. 1 1 Herbert Ingram Priestly. 1779) had earlier recommended both a general visitation o f the 1 0 Cited in Maravall. The Council also prepared recommendations for secular and religious appointments in the Indies. Galvez. with executive and legislative responsibility to be returned to the king. 1789) and Bernardo Ward {Proyecto Economico. 1743 fpub. and his ministers who would be responsible for sending orders. corregimientos and districts a collection o f provinces that would become a common territorial basis for political organization. and is the only [division] that can put us in a state to foment this great body o f the monarchy. administrative and even social spheres supposed an intense interventionism. one for Pen). audiencias. Jose de Galvez. 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. 16-17. in some cases homogenization in the military. . In Spain. Although both Jose Campillo y Cosio {Nuevo Sistema de gobierno. politico-territorial. 1916). Estudios de la historia. and the other for judicial duties.11 In the Americas.” The same author wrote that “provinces equally distributed give rise to uniformity of operations in their officers and in their employees. one for New Spain (Guatemala included). 1760. pub.

Americas followed by institution o f the intendancies.1 2 While the first intendancy was set up in Cuba in 1764. [Madrid. by appointment. as had been true throughought the Ancien Regime. by introducing new taxes and professionalizing the system o f tax assignment and collection. in the functionaries that he designated. sobre cuyo pie ha de continuar desdeprimero de mayo de esle presente ano de mil setecientosy veintey seis (Madrid. Both in the Peninsula and in the American territories. a series o f fiscal agencies was set up serially in the Americas. The Royal Lottery received its own regulations in 1768. or general treasury. at the very least. instead a piecemeal project o f reform ensued. the principle o f a law laid down from the center and uniformly applied in the provinces could not be implemented in reality. 117 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. had its regulations organized in 1726. Instruccion. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In the Kingdom of Guatemala. The goal o f such reforms was not altruistic. theoretical political authority in this period resided in the king alone. the tesoreria general. one o f Charles Hi’s first measures to recast government in the Americas was to improve its tax base. 1798]. But it was not until 1798 that a monarch demanded centralization for his Real Hacienda. 1760-1785 In the 1760s.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 . Instrucciones establecidas para los posteros de la Real Loteria (Spain. y ordenanza. as elsewhere in the Spanish empire. que establezco para el goviem o de la Tesoreria general.. Con esta fecha . and.1 3 The First Reforms: Taxation and Real Hacienda. however. to cooperate in implementation. the system o f real hacienda. Nor could the underlying principle o f negotiated rule be dispensed with in practice. 1768). As had occurred earlier in Spain.. . 1726). Charles HI was interested not in improving the lot o f 1 2 For example. and political authority in practice depended on the active cooperation o f the local authorities whose task it was. 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... Spain.

Full text o f the instructions appears in Priestly. 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). 153. 14 March 1765. 118 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1680-1840 (New York: Columbia University Press. 1982). 1 5 Miles A.” 15 New monopolies on liquor (aguardiente) (1758) and tobacco (1765) were introduced.. Government and Society in Central America.” this ideal was both a wishful attempt to forestall opposition and quickly abandoned in Mexico and elsewhere. it paradoxically assigned significant autonomy to 1 3 Fernandez Hernandez. At the same time. 14 In the Kingdom o f Guatemala. Jo se de G alvez. 139. independent branches o f the different departments o f the royal hacienda were opened or expanded in four provincial capitals and several port towns. 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. El Reino de Guatemala. p. along with the official administrators who would supervise the collection o f the tax throughout the kingdom. I have reversed the order of the clauses in the sentence.his American subjects but. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. were relocated to Guatemala City. pp. on playing-cards and gunpowder (also used in fireworks). p. Wortman.on account o f the large sums needed in attending to the obligations o f my royal crown.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. . . While the Crown was centralizing the government for Central America within the kingdom o f Guatemala. to “increas[e] as much as possible the income from the revenues [of the royal patrimony/ hacienda] . 1 4 Instructions to Jose de Galvez.” If Galvez was also instructed to improve existing systems so that “the burden of imposing new contributions may be avoided. 404-412.

1 Royal Income from different sources.6) 307.094 (36.1 demonstrates.5) 1771-1775 124. the Caroline fiscal reform measures— creation of new monopolies.080 (50.0) 89.9) 239. the reforms were successful.085 1760-1763 136. Indian tribute had provided up to eighty percent o f Central America’s tax base until Charles M ’s reforms.822(57.194(31. As the tax categories hint.” Indian Tribute To achieve this success. How? The implementation o f these measures permanently shifted the principal tax burden from Central America’s Indian population to that o f the urban Creole and ladino populations.231 1723-1725 152.5 (1771. as Table 3. ** Annual Profits from Tobacco. the Caroline fiscal reforms significantly changed the relation between government and society.5) 15.4 Most likely this figure contributes tot he growth of “all other income. In financial terms.139(41. 1723-1725 Alcabala & Total All Other Tobacco Barlovento Income 29.030 (23. however. Government and Society.973 (22. 119 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.1) 23. Government anc'Society. 143. Royal income increased significantly in the years subsequent to the reforms.663 (9.4) 189.311 (77.792 338.8941** 99.096 (26. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.3) 98.623 79.890(54.2 (1723-1761J) and 7. Year 16 Wortman.0) 132.7) lies Wortman.1819).570 T71. 1766-1771.provincial branches o f the royal treasury in keeping with the philosophy o f equal distribution o f government. Table 7.4) 196. Table 3.003 (36. led by the astounding growth o f the tobacco monopoly.081 (7. Tables 7.3) 1815-1819 135. and division o f the responsibilities o f the royal hacienda into separate offices—affected all members o f Central American society.920 1764-1768 140.762(18. p.5) 1805-1809 111. increased collection of extant sales taxes. .1) 318.989 (29.9) 123.

730 pesos in 1788. 349. Wortman. The principal loser in this reorganization was the city council o f the capital. increased phenomenally. which had collected the kingdom’s taxes and administered several kingdom-wide 1' Jose Manuel Santos Perez. with the quinto amounting to only 12. By 1764-8. .003 pesos (4. Appendix C. University of Salamanca. the focus on increasing taxes on commercial transactions dramatically changed the balance. tribute amounted to only 140. In other words.7%) and the alcabala 98. 120 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 286-7 and p. the annual royal profit dropped to around 100. In the same years. and the provinces. In 1744-8. presumably funded by the new liquor and tobacco taxes.968 (80%) pesos.3%). By the end of the eighteenth century. fQ At the same time. civil and military employees and to supplement tax payments. 5%) to 83. all other income had increased from 18. the alcabala had grown from only 6% o f all taxes collected to almost 30%. Government and Society. the burden o f the new taxes fell on three groups: the merchants o f the capital. in both absolute and relative terms.3%). 155. Government and Society. The profit o f the tobacco tax alone was over 200. the Bourbon reformers took on the task o f breaking the merchant elites’ control o f tax collection. Indian tribute reached a record 202.17 By mid-century.The second and third most important sources of funds were the alcabala. “Poh'tica y comercio: el cabildo y los regidores de Santiago de Guatemala. 1 8 Wortman. p. since those suddenly paying increasing amounts to the Crown unsurprisingly resisted.139 pesos (41.7% ).000 pesos in all but three years between 1771 and 1795. 146. pp. Although in the 1790s. 1713-1787. or tax on mined silver. never to rise again. It took a two-part assault on tax collection to achieve the shift. or sales tax. and the quin to real.989 (29%). 1996. p. reaching the lofty and astonishing height of 383. while Indian tribute sank to less than half o f the official intake. the quinto had risen to 16. this amount still represented a significant sum used to pay the Spanish payroll of clerical.990 pesos (7.500 pesos (7. urban residents and those involved in the Spanish economy. First.789 (24. the importance o f the tax on tobacco.402 (5%) pesos. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and the alcabala 18.000 pesos.” PhD.

including the sales tax and taxes on liquor. sealed paper and the mail system. Francisco Antonio Granda. or tax on aguardiente de caha. Araujo named one individual to administer the ramo in Guatemala in return for 5% o f intake. 226. the Guatemala City ayuntamiento experienced the dismemberment o f all its audience-wide responsibilities. In 1749. 115. came in 1762.20 In 1764. between 1749 and 1764. 1944). or postmaster for the kingdom. and Diego Arroyave y Beteta. However.” p.monopolies. The last three post-holders were Fernando Ignacio Colomo. 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.21 The final loss to the city council was the right to administer the kingdom’s local liquor tax. was separated from an alderman’s position to become a full-time salaried office o f the real hacienda. Article 20 of Visitador Jose de Galvez 1765 instructions indicated that in New Spain. p. This simple change earned the king over 3400 pesos in 1763 alone. Galvez was instructed to get the extant tax collectors to share the costs o f collection rather than to establish a salaried administrator. and that the Crown was concerned to increase productivity of the 6% tax. The official rate had been triple this amount. the revenue of alcabala was leased to villas and partidos. 409. papel sellado. 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. “Politica y comercio. 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. as well. the cabildo lost its contract to collect the kingdom’s sales tax. the administration o f sealed paper. 235-236. however. 2 1 Jose Joaquin Pardo. pp. 121 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. and was a model followed in later reforms. and assigned the job to the alcaldes mayores o f the rest of the kingdom. The most important reform. Jose de Galvez . The city council had traditionally assessed the tax at a rate o f 1%. . since the merchant members o f the council had conflicting interests that made them poor enforcers o f the tax’s conditions. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.19 In fact. “° Santos Perez. the same procedure was repeated with the correo mayor.

the role o f the capital city’s government was thus reduced to its immediate jurisdiction. The patchwork approach that had produced separate types o f taxes. Ciudad Real. El Reino de Guatemala. If the thrust o f the first wave o f financial reforms required severing city ties with tax collection. and Comayagua. too. “Gastos de personal del Tribunal y Contaduria de Cuentas. . were considerable. Carlos HI placed the administration o f new and old taxes in the hands o f a new breed o f salaried fiscal bureaucrats. as we shall see below.000 pesos if a trading vessel arrived) as the kingdom’s official tax collector. the city council promised to send the Crown between 16.000 pesos for this branch o f funds. Factoria de tabacos (1767). Between 1728 and 1762. 23 Bemabe Fernandez Hernandez. see Emesto Chinchilla Aguilar. El Ayuntamiento colonial de la ciudad de Guatemala (Guatemala: Editorial Universitaria. each with a contract for collection. For additional discussion of Santiago’s control o f the alcabala . San “ The council had first purchased the privilege of administering the alcabala in the sixteenth century.22 With the loss o f its extensive economic privileges. and a customs house (aduana) created. in 1762 the city appeared to have a surplus of 30. Neither uniformity nor centralization can be found in the solution that developed with each new element o f change. rather than a centralized revenue service. Only from 1667 to 1728 was the tax administered by royal officials. Contaduria Mayor (1771) and Administracion de Correos (1768) opened their main branches in Guatemala City and receptorias in the provinces. Leon.500 pesos annually (up to 29.000 and 18. The Direccion General de Alcabala (1763). the administrator o f the alcabala had branch offices in San Salvador. 122 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. did not change its self-proclaimed image as representative of the kingdom. it equally required new tax collectors and administrators. 1961). had administraciones in Granada.23 The tobacco office.Crown. 227. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. pp. According to this author. Although no official accounts were kept to determine the magnitude o f the city’s profits in this endeavor. In addition to offices in the capital.’’ p. a change which. 107-114. 1801-1811. the relentless fight for return o f the privilege on its loss in 1667 suggests that the benefits. spawned a series o f new administrations. Table. From the 1760s. either in terms o f direct profit or patronage.

Salvador and Ciudad Real. Each office had its separate staff. It was not until 1817 that Ferdinand VH established a “general system” for the royal treasury 24 Fernandez Hernandez. there was not between them. In essence.24 Only the office o f the contaduria mayor. Tegucigalpa. by selecting both Leon and Granada. In 1802. all dependent o f the factoria o f Gracias (Honduras) in Gracias. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and Quimistan. 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. 1801-1811. a corregimiento which became part o f Guatemala after independence. existed uniquely in the capital. On the contrary. employing up to five officials and a scribe. and Chiquimula. Comayagua. like Tegucigalpa and Copan in Honduras. often local residents. originally led by Spanish bureaucrats assigned from Spain in order to reduce local influence in both assignment and collection o f royal funds. El Reino de Guatemala. in the intendancy o f Comayagua. Santa Barbara. which oversaw the rest o f the colonial fiscal functions. 123 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 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. p. as well as the contador. each o f these offices had its own regulations. served as liaisons to the regional districts in areas allowed to grow tobacco. Equally importantly. . Additional officials. collections agents and agencies. 280-283. 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. and Tegucigalpa and Comayagua as locales for different fiscal authorities. and hierarchy. and gradually supplemented with Creole elites. Sensenti. and if there was uniformity within each directorate. there were administraciones of tobacco.25 Thus.

124 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Government and Society.{real hacienda). de Arizpe. In fact. but the system itself became diffuse.803 pesos.B. 17y 18 de abril de 1817. The difference is increased when the importance of the cattle trade is taken into account. Madrid. y bulas dadas por el santisimo padre Pio VII en Roma a 15. the first branch offices proved unable to improve fiscal administration in the provinces.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. 16. Merchants and governors in the interior each had good reason not to enforce tax collection. the extent to which the provinces had evaded paying their share to state coffers became apparent.26 At best one can argue that the Crown centralized the control o f taxes in the hands o f royal officials. The Crown remained the center o f the system. p. Reimpreso en la oficina de J. . 1817. a striking discrepancy. and Mexico. a second series of reforms were needed. 1817. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. For this. in 1805 the Captain General reduced the number to four to save costs. Yet for this five year period. removing the responsibility from the city councils who had administered them before. 147. With new and old taxes successfully collected in the capital and its dependent districts. El Reino de Guatemala. Real. Guatemala City had annually paid in alcabala an average o f 102. 1801-1811. 27 Wortman. The receipts from Guatemala City’s exit points (garitas ) from 1770-1774 declared that almost 5 million pesos’ worth o f clothing and merchandise had been sent to the interior.524 pesos and the interior only 37. Created with five officials in 1769. Real decreto para el establecimiento del sistema general de hacienda: instruccion para el repartimiento y cobranza de la contribution del reyno. and the Crown responded with a redistricting in order to establish sub-administrations o f real hacienda to increase tax collection. Impr. ' 6 Ferdinand VII.

and tobacco-producing region. The districts designated in 1777 for the cajas later served as the foundations for those used in 1786 for the establishment o f intendancies. which in turn had formed in the sixteenth century around the fiefdoms o f the conquistadors. for the most part. Since the intent was greater fiscal transparency and efficiency. an indigo. Totonicapan. consolidating as economic districts partidos that had been involved in less formal trading circuits but not bound by common institutions. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Thus the provinces o f Quezaltenango. was added to the responsibilities o f the office (caja ) in San Salvador. Leon. the districting also harked back to the initial territorial divisions established with the conquest. however. the caja was moved from the diocesan and district capital of Comayagua to the mining center o f Tegucigalpa. as much o f the province specialized in these crops. In Honduras. and the caja 28 Wortman. as well as San Antonio Suchitepeques. 147-148. Government and Society. came under Chiapas’ fiscal control rather than Guatemala’s. The alcaldia mayor of Sonsonate.28 Yet as much as looking forward. and Solola. Chiapas and Comayagua foreshadowed the devolution o f significant judicial. replicated the jurisdictions of Central America’s bishoprics. .supervision o f bureaucratic activity by the alcaldes mayores and corregidores who still collected the taxes in their jurisdictions. The initial districting. As Miles Wortman has detailed. 125 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. p. which sent many o f their cotton goods to Chiapas. exceptions were made in deference to established economic patterns. political and military power to consolidated provinces. the lines drawn for economic districts subject to the new sub-administrations o f San Salvador.

but reinforced the unity o f the smaller unit which dealt independently with several. by which time Guatemala had 8 branches (cajas ). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148. and this division did not foster particular identification with any outside center. El Reino de Guatemala. 243. p. the system had proved so effective that two o f the port towns and forts. Government and Society. The Guatemalan treasury only retained direct fiscal control over the Caribbean port o f Omoa.assumed responsibility for the corregimiento of Chiquimula. p. also had their own financial authorities. In the process of rationalizing commercial ties. that would facilitate the transport o f goods to the capital for distribution (see Figure 11). Omoa and Truxillo. including the caja mdtriz in the capital. however: the desire to keep centralized control out o f Guatemala City. The smaller alcaldias mayores and corregimientos might look to different governors for their judicial. the entry and exit point for most transatlantic trade.30 Guatemala City’s 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. which produced tabacco alongside its neighbor Copan. All three were functioning in 1788. 1801-1811. 30 Fernandez Hernandez. political and economic needs. 126 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. . One pattern did remain the same between the early and later fiscal reforms. 29 Wortman.29 By the 1780s. the fiscal reforms thus underlined the weakness o f the political ties that bound each district to its nominal capital.

Figure 11: Proposed Road to Omoa. Guatemala 238 (Courtesy. . Archivo General de Indias). Mapas y Pianos. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1780s Source: AGI.

by the early 1780s.In essence. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Guatemala City’s importance as unique capital. as seen in Table 3. fragmenting authority away from the titular head o f the colony. to the establishment o f these regional offices. in large part. 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. . undisputed economic as well as political center o f the kingdom. 128 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Taxes could be paid locally and only contentious issues were referred to the caja matriz for resolution. If the institutional ties linking the communities o f a province coalesced around the new fiscal centers. although significant declines in the amounts paid by both capital and provinces began around 1800. 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.2. By the 1790s. these new fiscal districts allowed each region to develop its own fiscal program and connections without always requiring recourse to the capital. the interior provinces surpassed the capital in providing revenue. was further eroded. Thanks. at the same time they became new sites o f power away from the colonial capital.

151 126.278 111. Leon (Nicaragua). p.138 61.080 1787-89 Missing 169. If the first administrators o f the new revenue machinery were officials sent fresh from Spain.3.100* 1795-99 271. For the goals o f uniformity and professionalization proved imposssible to achieve. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Interior provinces included the interior of Guatemala.Table 3.725* 1800-04 228. 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. Wortman. .147* 194.466 Missing 1790-94 270. thus undermining the drive that Year Total 129 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.184 1805-09 80. within a decade many o f the positions were staffed by native sons and Spaniards intimately connected with the region. Prepared from data provided in Table 7. Annual Average of Funds sent to the Royal Coffers (1891-1819). Government & Society. Salvador.388 1810-14 102.324* 143.806 108.720 189.861 1815-9 137. 1781-1819 Guatemala Central Interior Provinces Administration 1781-86 264. 150.178 159. distant foe.008 91.163 129.072* 138.442 75. but the long-term costs o f the program o f extending government and taxes must be assessed separately. 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 Kingdom’s inhabitants against a common. Costs of the Fiscal Reforms The initial financial benefits o f increased taxation can be seen in the numbers.696* * No data for at least one year in at least one province. Tegucigalpa/Comayagua (Honduras).438 141.2: Guatemalan Tax Collection. and Tuxtla/Ciudad Real (Chiapas).594 85.

advantageous to state and taxpayer alike. 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. on its on behalf and 3 1 Lynch. given the focus o f the reforms and the communities affected. Finally.separated financial responsibilities from local institutions such as the town council and providing professional experience for Guatemalan Creoles. Those most adversely affected by the new financial system. fiscally advantageous to the American branch of the Spanish imperial state. 130 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Bourbon Spain . as noted above. the elites from the capital assumed many of the plum provincial jobs. city residents and those integrated into the Central American market economy. and adding to existing tensions between center and provinces. also increased the political cost o f establishing taxes and monopolies through direct and indirect resistance. 169. over time. Unsurprisingly. 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. p. . the diffusion and institutionalization o f economic institutions not only foreshadowed territorial consolidation that would take place in the next twenty years. on which the American reforms were built. it was the city council of Guatemala City that led the opposition to reform. the reforms undoubtedly lacked whatever popularity they had had in the peninsula. Increasing and improving tax collection provoked most o f the Kingdom’s communities to jointly protest their increased fiscal contributions to Spain. indirectly reasserting authority in the provinces. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.”31 Although. John Lynch describes the process of “de-privatization o f revenues” in 1749-1750 Spain. Further.

. A full list of tavern owners for the period 1764-1784 can be found in AGI Guatemala 473. motivated the vecinos of Santiago in 1729 to petition for the return o f the tax collecting privilege. As Jose Manuel Santos Perez has observed in “Politica y Comercio.” Chapter 2. Consejos 20950. 211 passim. 12 February 1786. the 1750s institution o f the liquor tax. The city had contracted to pay 8. Archivo Historico Nacional (AHN). Testimonio. pp.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. and 9 for the second. 1760. 211-213. AGCA A 1.22 Leg.33 By the 1760s. A meeting in 22 January 1762 apparently authorized some o f 131 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.. 142. at a fee of 50 pesos every six months. 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. Actas. based on the city council's actas. for notes from various city council meetings in the 1760s that discuss the licensing o f taverns and management o f drunkenness. ff. 365-6. Madrid.000 pesos a year to administer the aguardiente tax. 34 Santos Perez. 32 Wortman.669 pesos. whose opposition to its creation had threatened the ability o f the Spanish government to apply it at all. which functioned in practice much like a consulado de comercio. p.34 When the city could not account for its intake and expenses. Efemerides. 1797. in the first two years. p. “Politica y comercio. This petitioning not only reviatlized the city government but also gave the city a diputacion de comercio. Pieza 48. with the profitability o f licensing the brewing o f local liquors and the sale o f wines o f Castile and Peru. attached to letter 513 o f Captain General Jose de Estacheria to Jose de Galvez. the benefit o f controlling this tax was clear. See also Pardo. Exp. 31-50. Pedro Carrillo. it declared gains o f 22. cites the beginning o f the monopoly as 1758 but in Joaquin Pardo’s Efemerides.also on behalf o f its disgruntled residents. Government and Society. the sindic Cayetano Pavon declared that the city had taken in 33. Through municipal organization. The earliest reform. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the awarding o f the right to collect the alcabala to the individual merchant. 11793. which they had held from the conquest to 1667. 33 The number o f taverns varied between 4 and 28. informs that for 1758 the city gave 12 licenses for the first half of the year.” pp. By 1762. was initially farmed out to the Guatemala City town council. implementation o f the reforms to the Crown’s liking proved difficult at first and impossible to achieve in the terms laid out by the “uniform” instructions emanating from Spain. although the formal institution was not established until 1793.792 pesos the year before. Much o f this capital went to finance loans.

pp. After the control o f the tax was removed. 219-220. 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.000 pesos. because the city was acting within its legal rights.” 132 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Efemerides. such as profit by the individuals who administered the tax. AGCA A1 22 Leg. 36 AGI Guatemala 473. for he claimed the city’s “creation o f new taverns to destroy the estanco” was “capricious. Santos Perez. the important point was that municipal opposition to Crown policies delayed the loss of city authority over this tax for over a decade. and perhaps masked equally improper uses o f the funds. but these are not in this legajo.”36 However.the Crown took over the monopoly in 1766. Letter 513. In 1768. Exp 11800. . Captain General Estacheria. 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. al qual se ha opuesto dicho ayuntamiento caprichosamente. 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 city’s] designs. closing [its] eyes to the benefits that have accrued to this republic in particular regarding the conduct o f its plebes [pleve]. Pardo. the city council found another way to get around it: increase the number o f licenses for taverns selling Spanish and other imported spirits.” citing a cedula “obsequiar a los presidentes y aver remitido a estos reynos crecidas sumas para sobstener vuestros designios y relajacion.” that is. arguing the city’s inability to avoid excess alcohol consumption. The original source was the actas de cabildo o f 1768. Captain General Estacheria issued decrees against this practice in 1786. its lawsuits and requests for privileges. “Politica y comercio. The letter supposedly encloses a series o f reports on Estacheria's actions. which was bought in March for 20. previously most disordered. Estacheria wrote that the city had established taverns “para destruir el nuevo estanco de cana.. 12 February 1786. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. However. 1799. and exercising the kind o f local prerogative that had defeated the funds to purchase houses next to the city council building.35 The accusation was likely true.

. as well. The capital’s elites did not represent the only resistance that forced the government to reconsider and renegotiate the terms o f the new tax system. see Robert S. a measure that the tax collector-town council. Smith. including all sales o f meat and its byproducts. Finally. barlovento. the motor o f colonial Central American economy. as well as to apply the export tax. Valdes also enforced lapsed provisions calling for the tax to be calculated on all sales and resales. and the import tax to European cloth. The new taxes also proved an opportunity for locals threatened by the new taxes to organize resistance. the resistance was not organized. As in other parts o f Spanish America. 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. and for the fiscal situation o f the Kingdom of Guatemala. Wortman. to indigo. Miles Wortman. 1787-1819. pp. 141-175. For a thorough treatment of indigo production and commerce. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148. there was little the governor could do except protest. 142-143. Valdes began to tax previously tax-free transactions.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.” pp. Government and Society . 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. After the Santiago cabildo lost the contract to collect the alcabala in 1762. and Indian traders resisted application o f the higher tax.unwelcome reform since the conquest.” pp. in Luis Rene 133 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. staffed principally by merchants and suppliers o f the local markets. 245-284. like meat. “Produccion y Comercio de anil en la Guatemala colonial. “Rentas Publicas y Tendencias Economicas en Centroamerica. had preferred to ignore. Guatemala’s first royal administrator.

“The “Rebellion o f the Barrios”: Urban Insurrection in Bourbon Quito.taxes that had been previously ignored or discounted.[with] which the resale tax was received. However. Arrom and S. no visible role is assigned the role of the city’s leading men or the cabildo in the height o f confrontation. 1765. in at least one important Guatemalan case. 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. ed. the city council mediated between masses and Spanish reformer officials and negotiated a compromise which prevented discontent from advancing to rebellion. 232-234.. pp. Silvia M. pp. This work is reprinted from Hispanic American Historical Review 69:2 (May 1989): 283-330. CR]: Banco Centroamericano de Integracion Economica. eds. the city reported “the universal disgust. the Crown informed the Kingdom of Guatemala o f the Caceres.38 As in other moments. Efemerides. 1989). 134 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. (Wilmington. Asuncion de Guatemala (Guatemala City). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to push the mestizo and mulato populations into protest along with the rest o f the communities directly impacted by Charles Hi’s drive to increase royal revenues. 1765” in Riots in the Cities: Popular Politics and the Urban Poor in Latin America. which is presented as the plebe against the audiencia and Spanish officials.. announced simultaneously with the revised alcabala terms. although no evidence directly indicates that this happened. inexplicably. 38 For an example of a “vanishing” Creole role. it was also involved in stirring up popular unrest. 1996).. On November 4.”39 Yet it took a new tax. . Given the council’s experience in undermining unwelcome local and royal legislation. Ortoll. royal officials. 39 Pardo. it would seem likely that to some extent. DE: Scholarly Resources Books. see Anthony MacFarlane’s treatment of the 1765 Quito uprising in which. 1765-1910. Lecturas de Historia de Centroamerica ([San Jose. unlike other instances where elites apparently vanished from the conflict when city plebes expressed discontent. 34-41 passim. What did happen was that in 1766. Anthony Mac Farlane. later supported by the Crown.

Yet in Guatemala City. Tobacco had been grown and traded in Central America since the seventeenth century. had been farmed extensively in both large and small quantities by diverse populations. se desaforase y pidiese un levantamiento. It received the answer that since the item taxed was neither for food or other common necessities but merely for entertainement.establishment o f the tobacco monopoly. which always responded to the acceptance or rejection o f its ayuntamientos.. could become disorderly and ask for an uprising. the principal market. not only Indian tributaries but also the Kingdom’s elite merchants.41 The city council. “podria producir el que el publico. Government and Society. artisans and small farmers were united in the role o f taxpayer. in January o f 1766. p.40 For the first time since the conquest. It also penalized small farmers in areas that had previously grown the crop but did not receive royal licenses to continue. at least. In the original. 28 January 1766. simmering tensions did erupt. Sebastian Calvo de la Puerta to Manuel de Batres and Juan Fermin de Aycinena. because “the public. The tobacco monopoly hurt local purchasers. In November. the popular classes turned to the ayuntamiento to communicate their discontent to the Spanish reformers.147-148. de sus ayuntamientos.” 4 Wortman.”42 Ten months later. . Pardo. que siempre caminaba a la mira de la acpecion o no aceptacion. 42 Oidor Lie. as the Crown lowered purchase prices and raised sales prices after it took control of production. pp. and due to the low-maintenance nature o f the crop. also sent two representatives to plead with the captain general not to implement the tobacco monopoly. the city should desist in its protest.” 135 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. indicates that this late establishment was achieved with peace and tranquility — “paz y quietud. Efemerides.. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1779. 229. 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. shopkeepers.

and cards elected twenty-five representatives who presented a petition to the council’s alferez real. The crowd wanted not only a return to the financial status quo ante. to neither take nor hold. but to an “unwritten constitution” in which local circumstances acceptably influenced application o f royal orders.44 In Guatemala. the president authorized grain distribution to the poor.” According to an act o f the council o f 18 Novemer. the situation was not allowed to build to the point o f a revolt. taking from each individual what is his. powder. como estan haciendo lo contrario con terminos habiles. suspending militia activity and collecting arms from mulatto soldiers. the protesters also presented their complaints to the first mayor and the Franciscan order. After negotiating with the city. as God orders in his seventh commandment. and arresting the authors of the artisan petition. The protest read: [W]e. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 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 they do the contrary in a skilful manner. 232-4. nor desire that which is not his. Efemerides.. p. customs duties and taxes. 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. In 43 Pardo.. The Spanish reads “nosotros los pobres pedimos la justicia de darle a cada uno Io que es suyo. against to the will o f its owner. the poor. the president and audience agreed to suspend application o f the sales tax to resales in small stores (menestrales. ask justice to give to each that which is his.estancos o f tobacco. Manuel de Batres. aduanas y alcabalas. by means o f monopolies. however. As a further measure. de no tomar ni tener ni querer lo ajeno contra la voluntad de su duefio. 136 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. como lo manda Dios en el septuno mandamiento. increasing safeguards o f the royal treasure chests and receipts.43 As John Leddy Phelan so elegantly observed when dissecting a similar anti-tax movement in 1781 New Grananda. the President took the threat seriously. quitandole a cada uno lo que es suyo. unlike New Granada. con estancos. When informed. liquor.

it was the lowered purchase price because of the government's lack of competition as purchaser. dated in October. Pardo. Later reports to the city suggested that such unrest had manifested itself to some extent in the countryside. The Spanish reads “formando el cuerpo de ciudad. In the latter case. . xvii-xviii. and the institution of the two monopolies. audiencia and captain general combined with the palliative measures undertaken by the high officials restored order. the revolt did not materialize. 234. pp. which was the major problem. indicating that various towns were threatening uprisings in response to the rise in alcabala tax. The official notice underlined the council’s official position o f “forming the body o f the city.” This coordination paid off in a banda o f 27 November. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45 Pardo.45 This alliance between city. On December 19*. the Guatemala city council had received a letter from Ometepe. After these murmurrings. The People and the King: The Comunero Revolution in Colombia. en quien estan refundidos los derechos del pueblo. when the President underlined that he was acting in concert with the Noble Ayuntamiento and its members.46 44 John Leddy Phelan. 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.this case. 1781. p. 233. the Captain General informed the king that he feared a popular uprising against the aguardiente and tabacco monopolies. p. Efemerides. Within a week o f the petition. the president and the audience. although without setting off the violent rebellions experienced in other parts of Latin America. the “unwritten constitution” returned in full force: a negotiated solution took precedence over the royal will. Creole priest Juan Antonio Dighero. Efemerides. the city had consulted the acting bishop. 137 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.” 46 On 31 December 1766. This diffusion o f what could have been the start o f a widespread rebellion owed much to the relationship between the city. and with his advice contacted the President to coordinate conciliatory measures to calm the “alteration and commotion. (London: Univeresity of Wisconsin Press. 1978).

By the 1773 transfer o f the capital. “Politica y comercio. Claiming the extreme poverty o f the Kingdom. In 1781. the benefits o f the reform were finally and completely overturned. The royal goals o f increased revenue and more formal regulations o f fiscal offices. governor and people. and o f the Central American 4' Santos Perez. and expressed this view with enough vehemence or tenacity. officers and responsibilities were achieved. the cabildo wrote to the king to request the repeal o f the resale tax. an import tax which would have fallen primarily on the principal merchants o f the capital. with the usual caveat that if local communities found a particular tax too high. change the role o f the cabildo as mediator between Crown. they did not. bom and educated in Guatemala. the alcabala de intemacion. when the Crown assigned the city use o f the alcabala income towards reconstruction for a tenyear period.In addition to helping calm popular unrest. the city also acted to address the underlying problem. 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. but soon filled its ranks of junior fiscal officials with the sons o f Spanish administrators. 363-364.” pp. Success came after tenacious battle. The city council remained a key player in bridging the needs of the Crown with those o f local elites and even the pleve. 138 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.47 If the fiscal reforms succeeded in removing the control o f finances from direct city control. nor apparently did they intend to. The fiscal reforms took direct tax responsibilities out o f the hands o f the Guatemala elite. . was declared but never implemented. the tax was entirely repealed and another tax. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

1 February 1786. 49 AGI Guatemala 430-1.elite themselves. the Spanish administrator of the alcabala o f the capital.49 More often. Martinez Truxillo interventor de alcabalas de Leon (oficial mayor lo de aduana). since by 1812. even if Spaniards continued to 48 AGI Guatemala 428. Nombramiento de J. first bom son of Alonso Martinez. not only in the Rivera case. for example the new interventor de alcabala o f Leon was Juan Martinez Truxillo. The 1786 appointment o f Cristobal Cilieza. 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. . Miguel de Rivera y Maestre. 29 November 1805 50 AGI Guatemala 428. but also in the appointment of Manuel de Letona (Ortiz de Letona) to the position o f 4th official in 1805. Captain General Gonzalez Saravia Letter 493. 139 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.50 Once established. for the first time in the kingdom’s history. Nicolas de Rivera. however. 14 June 1783.48 In 1805. AGI Guatemala 430. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. so it is not surprising that soon after the establishment o f the new bureaucracy. Examples are numerous. local merchants and landholders gained access to official posts in the towns of their residence. it came to be staffed principally by those with local ties. the Guarda Mayor of the royal income o f the kingdom. in the capital and the provinces. As early as 1783. the practice of naming local sons to local positions took deep root. Sometimes Spanish bureaucrats found posts for their sons. provincial elites had access to similar employment opportunities in the royal bureaucracy as those o f the capital. had already achieved a temporary appointment as a secretary ( escrivente). Central America was not the richest o f Spain’s American territories. The 20-year old Rivera y Maestre. urged the appointment o f his Guatemalanbom son. This prohibition was not absolutely followed. a graduate of the Universidad de San Carlos in Asuncion. Captain General Gonzalez Saravia Letter 493. over 90% o f 740 “political and financial” positions in Central America were filled with Creoles. Thus. to a post as a junior official. scion of a well-established indigo-farming and merchant family. to be the administrador de alcabalas in San Salvador is a fairly typical example. 29 November 1805. Nomination by Captain General Jose de Estacheria.

Tegucigalpa. it was sons of the ranking families. via reservada. 52 Bemabe Fernandez Hernandez.” The salary breakdown. 1801-1811. and Chiquimula. Leon.51 Because o f the multiplicity o f administrations and their increasing presence in the provinces. o f both main and associated branches.52 The tobacco office had only 4 officials and one treasurer in Asuncion as well as employing officials in Granada. Santa Barbara. highest paying jobs. who became officials. became both an advisor to the intendant o f Nicaragua and a judge on the audiencia. a corregimiento which became part o f Guatemala after independence. 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.430 pesos. although these would sometimes be promoted within the Kingdom o f Guatemala and pass from one district to another. or over a third o f the total. like Tegucigalpa and Copan in Honduras. and those o f the upper echelons o f the Spanish and Creole middle classes. p. who despite marrying a Guatemala native. Table. Additional officials served as liaisons to the regional districts in areas allowed to grow tobacco. Comayagua.401 pesos. establishing ties and remaining. 227. and Comayagua. AGI Guatemala 413. all dependent o f the factoria o f Gracias (Honduras) in Gracias. Ciudad Real. there were administraciones o f tobacco. like Nicolas Rivera and Diego Pilona. it seems that the administrators continued to come from Spain. and Quimistan. Gastos de personal del Tribunal y Contaduria de Cuentas.predominate in the senior posts. most o f the posts by the early 1800s were located outside o f the capital. it is worth underlining the quality o f the appointments. 4 junior officials. Furthermore. In addition to the numbers. accession to 51 AGI Guatemala 631. Gertrudis Plazaola. in the intendancy o f Comayagua. and 3 scribes in Asuncion. . favored the Spaniards. 140 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. as well as at least two employees each in branch offices in San Salvador. For the most part. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. however. whereas the aggregate Creole salaries were 162. From 1804-1807 appointments o f principal officers o f the different sections of the real hacienda. Letters 30 January 1812. This number indicates a preponderance o f Spaniards in the highest ranking. as in previous centuries. San Salvador and Ciudad Real. Sensenti. whose jobs produced 83. however. The office of the administrator o f the alcabala had one vista.53 In 1802. El Reino de Guatemala.

and was taken into the Renta de Tabaccos in 1809 when the death of his father. AGI Guatemala 624. heraldicosy Historicos.” 55 AGI Guatemala 430. made it necessary for him to earn his living. for lack o f attention. received an appointment to the tobacco administration when the death o f his father left a good family in straightened financial circumstances. Letter 64. with sons following fathers into royal service. was among the “most distinguished families o f the capital. On his father’s death. 18 January 1812. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Najera received his own appointment but in Leon rather than Guatemala City’s administration because there was a bottleneck in promotions. “Biografias sinteticas de guatemaltecos distinguidos.4 wrong many long-term employees. that the king had to issue a royal order in 1775 specifying allowable degrees of consanguinity. in a country with few salidas and promotions. Approval o f nomination o f escribiente and contador de alcabalas to Agustin Yzaguirre and Jose Mariano Salguero. The young Jose Francisco de Cordova. 3 September 1811. The Najera family. 378. 533. pp. and.56 53 Fernandez Hernandez. Jose Francisco Cordova (1786-1856) was allowed to purchase the secretary’s post in 1811. who would go on to pen Central America’s second act of independence in July 1823 and earn fame as a liberal politician. Francisco. 1801-1811. the protomedicato o f the kingdom. The captain general justified his recommendation on the grounds that the promotion would . Jose de Bustamante.” Revista de la Academia Guatemalteca de Estudios Genealogicos. pp. .5 -1 So many relatives served in the various offices. 29 November 1805.” family members had served for over 100 years in the cabildo and were important merchants and landowners. despite being underage. 280-283. Council of Indias to Audiencia o f Guatemala. Pedro Jose de Najera served at half salary as tesorero general between 1806 and 1812 for his ailing father. 141 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.55 Such jobs became means to support elite families fallen on hard times. El Reino de Guatemala. 54 AGI Guatemala 431. who had served for 33 years in the financial bureaucracy. according to the captain general.a post often became a family affair. reissue the same order in 1805. 56 Arturo Taracena Flores.

Spaniard Jose Velasco. who created the post o f advisor (asesor) to the Captain General. the former correo mayor became treasurer o f Trujillo. while a son o f Pedro Ortiz de Letona. Floyd. Sugetos postuladores para el puesto del ministro tesorero de camas de Guatemala.” PhD. of two important Santiago hacendado and town council families.” as many kingdom-born sons found employment in provinces distant from those o f their birth and primary networks. scribe Domingo Estrada. Other Guatemalans included the factor in Quezaltenango. was named contador in San Salvador after 12 years o f bureaucratic service at a salary of 1500 pesos. see AGI Guatemala 668. Guatemala: Linaje y Racismo (San Jose. Batres y Asturias’ brother Manuel Antonio was the secretary (escribiente) o f the treasury in San Salvador. Men who also served on Guatemala City’s town council included the director general. “The Guatemalan Merchants. Jatiregui’s subsequent appointment as Director o f the Montepio de Aftil. in 1812. El Amigo de la Patria. Spaniard Rafael Ferrer. and appointed Guatemalan lawyer Jose Mariano Jauregui to fill it (1801-1807). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. For recent studies see Jose Antonio Fernandez Molina. Guatemala treasurer Juan Manuel Cerezo. por el muerto de Francisco Naxera. Jose Mariano Batres y Asturias. For example. CR: FLACSO. 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.57 This rhythm likely accelerated in the stewardship of President Antonio Gonzalez Saravia (1801-1811).fie l de alamacenes in San Salvador. which led to resentment by those who found it difficult to advance within the colony. 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. the sons o f the capital became more likely to achieve high-ranking appointments in the provinces than the reverse case. Guatemala officials Francisco Santa Cruz and Manuel Cerezo and Gracias factor Manuel Ybarra. 1992. 319-324. adviser Vicente Pielago . “Colouring the World in Blue: The Indigo Boom and the Central American Market.58 If even an 5' AGI Guatemala 431. 689 and also 416 and 722.The availability o f posts throughout the territory fostered what Benedict Anderson might have termed a “Creole functionary pilgrimage. 5 February 1821 58 For primary sources on the establishment o f the montepio. . See Valle (1821) in Marta Casaus Arzti. and Troy S. Guatemala. 1992). University of Texas at Austin. a fund established in 1782 to permit indigo planters to borrow funds from sources other than the merchants o f the capital. and interventor in Leon. Miguel Palomo. Scattered evidence seems to indicate that over time. Manuel Bolanos. 1750-1810. 1750-1800" ” 142 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. and treasury official Justo Sorogastoa. The Amigo de la Patria newspaper of Guatemala City reported the list o f employees in the tobacco offices in early 1821. pp. the Government and the Provincianos.

AGI Guatemala 431. Jauregui replaced Juan Manuel Truxillo. Nombramiento de Lie.institution designed specifically to foster economic development outside the capital was to be headed by a member o f the capitaline elite. Imagined Communities (New York. what hope could other institutions have of achieving real separation? However. Director del Montepio del Anil. 11 August 1807. Anderson’s 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. and Juan Nepomuceno Batres y Najera who served in the Napoleonic wars before becoming intendant o f Chiapas. 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.59 What can be asserted with certainty is that with new royal positions opening in the bureaucracy in the Americas and in Spain. as well as examples o f Guatemalan Creoles’ interest and success in sending children to Spain for an education and career. Francisco Camacho (Mexico). alcalde mayor Thomas Mollinedo y Villavicencio (Chile). See note 57 above for source. Among the scions of the capital who made the pilgrimage to Spain were Jose de Aycinena. Jose Antonio and Salvador. 143 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.]). first director o f this fund to bankroll the kingdom’s indigo planters. author o f the region’s first declaration o f independence. . 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. Guatemala’s elites expended no little energy in pursuing and securing both sinecure and working appointments. Santo Domingo and Mexico. 59 Benedict Anderson. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Two brothers Batres y Munoz. Among the nonGuatemalan Creole functionaries were: audiencia ministers Jacobo Villaurrutia (Santo Domingo). 1983 [1991 rev. The success o f this strategy was such that by 1820 a list prepared by Honduran-bom Guatemala resident Jose Cecilio del Valle. on the latter’s death. who served in the Consejo de Estado and Consejo de Indias from 1811. to an oidor in Hispanic American Historical Review 61(1961:1): 90-110. Jose Mariano Jauregui.

See Casaus Arzu. p. most recently in Casaus Arzu. Twelve men were brothers o f members o f the cabildo. Najera. . Montufar. 61 The nineteen men with both municipal and crown positions were from the Aycinena. the list also includes military appointments o f the clan.6. El Amigo de la Patria. 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. or merchants’ guild. Manrrique. Manrrique. Larrave. and has been reprinted several times. Beltranena. Almost half o f the non-ecclesiastical positions were filled by men who served in both types o f position (19 out of 48). Diag. indicating that this relatively new set o f positions also became important. Jose de Aycinena’s second wife was Maria Josefa Amalia de Sajonia. Palomo.60 If Guatemala City’s elite had lost direct control o f the system o f royal taxation through seats on the city council. 319-324. The city councils o f Central America experienced an unprecedented revival in the eighteenth century. Palomo. Barrutia. and Letona. 3 of Valle’s newspaper. indicating that families opted to keep their positions in city government while expanding into other positions as they became available. Guatemala: Linajey Racismo. the new positions simply provided new outlets for elite families o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala to participate in politics and government. Although this discussion centers on political and financial jobs. 144 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Among the families in the network are the Batres. Montufar. Arrivillaga. pp. Larrazabal. What the 1820 list also shows. Beltranena. Barrio. 319-324.Santa Fe de Bogota. indirectly it would recuperate authority by assuming positions in the new institutions. 7. Anivillaga. in 1820. Casaus Arzu. Guatemala: Linajey Racismo pp. Saravia. Batres. however. Guatemala: Linajey Racismo. a Spanish noblewoman. Pacheco and Echevem'a families. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.6 1 In fact. Asturias. Micheo. Pavon. is that the availability o f Crownappointed positions did not reduce interest in municipal office-holding. the Consulado de Comercio.. For. Najera. despite the intrusion o f competing institutions like the royal fiscal authorities and even a local institute. 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.

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. 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. not before. the thriving Spanish commercial center at the heart o f Central America’s silver producing zone. . authorization from Spain. The goal was no longer to erect a city-province out o f a huge unconquered territory. Such petitions were rare. the mature Creole towns that incorporated required royal approval that came after establishing residence.ensure that some government penetrated even to the farthest reaches o f the Kingdom. wanted to increase political clout in the 40-league alcaldia mayor 145 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Only one such town incorporated in the eighteenth century. prominent vecinos o f the real minas of Tegucigalpa. 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. Even before the intendancy reforms were implemented. the eighteenth century marked the return o f urbanization. When enough residents o f growing or prosperous settlements wished to increase their say in political life. Unlike the conquest municipalities. or a second municipal conquest. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 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. they sought villa status through the only available mechanism. In the 1760s.

146 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. the merchants and 62 AGI Guatemala 628. captain general. as well as the vecinos ’offer to build the city hall and to contribute an additional 3000 pesos to the new town’s coffers. and audience. Spaniards moved back into their cities and once again required authorities to police and govern urban centers and rural hinterlands. Sonsonate fought to reestablish a cabildo that had quietly ceased to exist in the late 1600s. this town was part o f a process o f municipal revival that affected the entire isthmus. Real Cedula 17 July 1768. As the economy recovered in the eighteenth century. it seems clear that access to a revived Peruvian trade and Indian labor for indigo obrajes influenced both. refusing to let the council meet or hold elections. After receiving support from Crown. . Local residents were eager to participate as trade revived. Madrid. who successfully petitioned the Crown for the real minas to become a villa. or whose residents had shown little interest in holding municipal office. Twice before 1750. Tegucigalpa’s vecinos hired a representative in Madrid. so too did the Bourbon monarchs encourage a rebirth o f city government in conquest-era towns that had been wholly or partially abandoned. To achieve this have secure access to Indian and mulatto labor for the mines and to food supplies produced in the region. while the district governor “terrorized” the town. Tegucigalpa’s 1000 silver peso donation to the royal treasury surely was o f substantial help to the cause. in part due to the increasing external market for the indigo crops of San Salvador.62 Although Tegucigalpa was the only Spanish villa to incorporate in the eighteenth century Kingdom o f Guatemala. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. From each side’s accusations o f the other.

. He repopulated this bulwark o f defense against English military activities and commercial inroads on the Kingdom’s economy with Canary Islanders and Galician immigrants in 1789.65 The Bourbons also recognized that the cohabitation o f the kingdom’s different populations that characterized post-conquest towns required new solutions. Ciudad Real in the 1780s. even the captain general himself coordinated the resurrection o f the strategic port of Truxillo on the Honduran coast. For the six titles o f regidores issued between 1740 and 1780. whose cabildo had not met for 60 years.63 By the last third o f the eighteenth century. see the 25 May 1807 letter o f the cabildo. In the 1740s. governors and king indignantly ordered the ouster o f these illicit settlers. in the context o f the city of Granada’s protest o f loss of territory in the 1780s. but only managed to make the revival permanent in \115. by the eighteenth century. the council functioned briefly. see AGI Guatemala 572. Francisco Guevara y Dongo. and the city government became fully functional after a sale of 4 regimientos in 1775 to Manuel Diez Clemente. A second revival began in the 1760s. Norberto Serrano Polo. 64 For Comayagua. see AGI Guatemala 507. see AGI Guatemala 446. When Spaniards had ignored royal orders not to live in Indian towns in the sixteenth century. For a reference to this battle. I have only found one reference to a late Bourbon governor. AGI Guatemala 534. as the censuses taken 63 For the 1723-1733 fight to reestablish the cabildo. 65 AGI Guatemala 453. and Comayagua in 1787. Manuel Carrera . 1810. resentful of cabildo interference with his running of the finances apparently tried to extinguish all four councils in the province. who. provisioning and defense issues. confirming that the interim intendant. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. including the royal decree o f 22 February1734. Captain General Gonzalez Saravia to Real Hacienda. such cohabitation was accepted in practice. had been instrumental in reviving the city.hacendados leading the effort formed a council briefly in the 1740s. However. Sonsonate’s cabildo had ceased to exist in 1686 when the town’s vecinos stopped purchasing regimientos. as in the cases o f Cartago in Costa Rica in 1778. which underlines the Spanish association o f Spanish cities with good government. 147 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. f.64 In a more unusual instance. Spanish governors more frequently nurtured and cajoled residents to revive municipal politics to deal with pressing sanitary. Domingo Carbello o f Nicaragua. Jose Antonio Cicilia y Montoya. 2.

193-210. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1801-1811. 259. Colonial Cities: essays on urbanism in a colonial context (Boston: M Nijoflf. pp. Poblacion y estado sociorreligioso de la diocesis de Guatemala en el ultimo tercio del siglo X V lll (Guatemala: Editorial Universitaria. Leyva.. Documentos Coloniales de Honduras. 148 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Doc. . 43 and Juarros. or at least the part that was Spaniard. passim. p. p. For the archdiocese o f Guatemala (Guatemala and El Salvador). ed. eds. when enough Spaniards and creoles moved into sufficiently important Indian economic centers. in Jesus Maria Garcia Anoveros. Telkamp. the Crown was prepared to grant Spanish municipal status for the town. El Reino de Guatemala. Ross and Gerard J. 1985). This happened at least three times in the Kingdom o f Guatemala. See also Adriaan Van the last third of the eighteenth century demonstrate in village after village (See Table 3. see population data collected by archbishop Cortes y Larraz in the 1760s. pp. writes that around 1800 there were no less than 700 poblaciones or aldeas in which the different castes lived together. Honduras’ 1801 matricula.3). Without eradicating the Indian justices established by earlier laws.and Creole-controlled. Table 2. is published in Hector M. “The Autarkic Colonial Cities of Central America” in Robert J. 45. the Crown could and did authorize a full municipal political system to accommodate the Spanish and ladino communities. 1991). by family (AGI Guatemala 501).. 272-289.66 Furthermore. Compendio. The 66 Bemabe Fernandez Hernandez.

Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21 Juarros. The acceptance of a dual system o f governance was the first step in integrating the diverse communities of each town and city. 501 Tegucigalpa (by 86 1801 Matricula 563 sin. in the district o f Nicaragua.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. almas families) * Denotes use o f term “mestizos” instead o f “ladinos” or “pardo" rather than “mulato. . 37 AGI Guatemala 501 6700 585 626* 910* 4807* 144 498 & 218 almas single 1407 1050 & AGI Guate. ** Denotes use o f term “negro.68 All three pueblos received the right to have Spanish town councils. 38 AGI Guate. Titulos de Indias (en el archivo de Simancas) (Valladolid: Archivo General de Simancas. of the alcaldia mayor o f San Salvador.67 The process repeated in 1805 in Quezaltenango. 35 Juarros. 23 Juarros. 110 Juarros. 263 Juarros. 42 Juarros. 629 Lutz." pueblo o f Rivas. with several aldermen and two mayors. 19 Juarros.860 5300 3869* 2795 1383 5740 4765 872* 185 2500 144 1695 Mulattos 5536 -2500 1679 300 ** Indios 5000 Source Juarros. 1954). 34 Juarros. achieved the privilege o f autonomy when it became a villa in 1783. 20 Juarros. and again in 1807 in indigo-producing Santa Ana. 149 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. a highland Guatemalan trading and agricultural center. 22 Juarros. 67 Ricardo Magdaleno.

and pay for any Indian lands that would need to be purchased to make up the new villa's communal property. fund the construction of a city hall and jail. For example. however. construct a new church for a separate ladino and Spanish parish. the Crown did not accept the offer.” which consisted o f 686 mulatto and 215 Indian families. The representative o f the Spanish families pointed ought that they sought not just the title o f villa. The Spaniards also pointed out that the town was 18 leagues from San Salvador.44. 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. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69 AGCA A 1. Despite these generous terms. the Spaniards would contribute 1000 pesos to the Crown. should the Spanish vecinos ’ plan go through.” that is. The proposal and opposition. in 1783 the justicia. 150 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Not all cases. whose alcaldes ordinarios extended their jurisdiction to it. p. The threat the opponents to the villa held out to Spanish authorities was the risk that their children would “wander dispersed. Legajo 3 Expediente 21. 8-9v. Compendio. were successful.69 68 Juarros. 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. 94-v. . no longer live in a city. indicate the dividing lines among increasingly ethnically mixed residents o f Central America's towns. however. and the growing competition to govern them. 234. In return for the honor. but local government— the creation o f a city council with 10 regidores. In some instances. ff.

Erection o f new villas located in former pueblos. then. that difficult to overcome resistance. like Sonsonate. abbetted and cajoled local residents to take charge once again of the burdens. for the most part. The press for more municipal organization affected the hundreds o f non-Spanish populations 70 AGCA A 1. despite incessant grumbling about the lack of remuneration. that a city council would end the need for the San Salvador governor to name a subdelegado to work in Sacatecoluca. 8-9v.70 On balance. Economic and demographic growth spurred a municipal revival which. ff. If. the balance sheet tipped in the opposite direction. it appears. represented an extension o f local government at the expense o f externally-appointed officials. . Expediente 21. It was not. Bourbon agents from the captain general to the provincial governors aided.44. confined itself to cities that already existed. 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. which carved their new jurisdictions from the alcaldias mayores or corregimientos they had depended on. Their creation. did not reduce the official jurisdictions of pre-existing cities. responsibilities and honors o f municipal government. 151 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. The municipal revival was not unique to Spanish communities. then by the close o f the century. The vecinos o f Sacatecoluca pointed out. Legajo 3. Others represented increased Spanish and ladino residence in towns that had started as Indian villages. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. towns like Sonsonate had to struggle to overcome gubernatorial bias against the resurrection o f locally-selected local authorities. for example. at the start o f the century. Most were Spanish cities.

o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala which could not claim to be ciudadesy villas de Espanoles. the same process o f “ruralization” that had affected the Spanish Central Americans in response to economic contraction. because “the King was not a King over fields and pastures but over towns. . 1 and 5 (1935-6 and 1939-40). 1984).71 This process was not unique to the Kingdom o f Guatemala. Vol. or to keep a residence in the central community. Spain and Portugal in the New World. 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. compounded the numbers o f Indians scattered in the countryside or lived in pueblos de Indios that no longer recognized regional centers.73 Even in wellcontrolled areas. 152 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Honduran interior. 349. As historians revise their understanding of the seventeenth century. and Mosquito Coast o f Nicaragua and Honduras. 351. producing needs for Indian labor and mulatto soldiers to fight increasing British incursions into the isthmus. 2 Cited in McAlistair. p. McAlistair. The mayor o f Cartago (New Granada) expressed his exasperation as he exhorted his district to hacer vecindad. the phenomenon o f ‘ruralization’ may also come under reconsideration. 1492-1700 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Spain and Portugal.”72 As the economy revived in the 1700s. Indian Republic. the work o f reduccion continued. the Crown praised Lyle N. p. Ladino and Mulatto Pueblo In the seventeenth century. 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. as late as 1800.

Pieza 74. y no haviendo quien la administre es presiso falte el orden y concierto y que vivan barbaramente” 153 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Guatemala. 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. 7 AGI. 4. Doc. Consulta. which first had organized government for Spaniards and Indians. Reduccion a poblacion de los mulatos de Ystapa Dictamen del Fiscal Romana. imperial agents still used the language o f municipal republicanism to justify forcing non-Spanish communities to establish or live in towns. 4. de Jumay (1764). por haber establecido un pueblo de indios. Verapaz. 5 September 1765. However.the intendant o f Chiapas’ establishment o f the Indian town San Fernando de Guadalupe. No. 29 November 1800.74 Two centuries after the initial conquest. Guatemala 446. . the logic. overcame the objections of the ladino cattle ranchers o f the Valle de Jumay. Recommendacion de meritos de intendente de las Cuentas Zayas. de Chiapa. Guatemala. ” 77 and in Christian society and policia. now applied to new types o f vassals o f Spain. 15. Ereccion de Cabildo en el pueblo de ladinos. Ereccion de Cabildo en el pueblo de ladinos. 15 December 1764. the ladino and mulatto communities. Guatemala 446. such as the governor intended to create. provided “political and social (civil) life for their inhabitants to live in peace and justice. “Que el fin de las poblaciones es la vida politica y civil de sus havitadores en paz y justicia. Doc. 6 AHN Consejos 20953.76 Royal officials supporting his efforts wrote that poblaciones. de Jumay (Santa Rosa). 78 Living dispersed was to live “contrary 4 AGI Guatemala 415. and settled them into an official pueblo named Santa R osa. '5 AGI. f 12-v. after repeated efforts. scattered throughout the Kingdom. Governor Rivera y Perez. Dictamen del Fiscal.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.

ff. ..”79 Juan de Ayssa. Dictamen del Fiscal. Once accessible. Intendant of Nicaragua.90 If anything. Pieza 74: Reduccion a poblacion de los mulatos de Ystapa (1764). as well as Spanish ability to call up the mulatto militia company in times of need. f.Unidos en republica. hoped in his reciprocal visit to find means to build roads into the interior with the goal o f convincing the region’s Carib. 5 September 1765. engaged in 1789 in negotiations with the Mosquito governor Carlos that included hosting a three-day reception for the Carib governor’s nuptials. 12.. 80 AGI Guatemala 721. “sociedad Christiana. No. 154 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. y policia.. Consejos 20953. Ayssa and his wife were the godparents (padrinos) o f Governor Carlos Antonio Castillo and his bride. these ladino and mulato townships could elect their own local mayor and councilmen. in the wilderness (despoblado) with neither doctrina nor education. 5. two hundred years of contact in the Americas had merely reinforced a lesson thoroughly ingrained in Spaniards with their own reconquista. Reduccion de los mulatos de Ystapa. barbarously. 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.M. Like the Indian pueblos. in case o f robbery or conflicts with Indian pueblos over cattle pasturing. Equally. Juan de Ayssa to S. City living also facilitated priestly control o f religious devotions and all civilization (civilidad'). 23 January 1789. the new urban population also risked imposition o f taxes and forced sale of goods. The local mayors were responsible not just to the inhabitants. Consejos 20953. but also to the governor. se comuniquen "(my italics) 79 AHN. Pieza 74. and the wedding was presided over by the bishop of Nicaragua. 12-v. 8. Indian and even Spaniard denizens to move into pueblos. 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. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

subdelegado del Partido de los Llanos. they also provided more adequate help in a port in which Yrisarry. wished to expand. Chiapa. The Council warmly recalled Farrera’s father. The council also welcomed initiatives to create new municipal authorities in towns that had become multiracial over time. The rest o f this group remained to populate the outskirts o f Saladillo and Chapagua. The town of Matiare. . in the jurisdiction o f Sonsonate.governors who highlighted their successful efforts to form new pueblos because they understood it would increase their chances to attain new posts. who had successfully created several pueblos with cabildos from groups of dispersed settlers in various parts o f Chiapa in the 1790s. 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. 1819. the audience agreed with alcalde mayor Francisco Xavier Aguirre in 1802 and created alcaldes pedaneos ladinos with four regidores de aicxiliares.81 The late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century also produced a boom in new settlements o f blacks displaced from the Caribbean. others went to the Pacific port town o f Realejo in 1798. the captain general o f Havana had sent a large number o f French “negros ” from Santo Domingo (Haiti) to Truxillo (Honduras). who traded with Peru. was founded with some of these families. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. between Grananda and Leon in Nicaragua. When Guatemala recaptured the island o f Roatan from the British in 1797. Ciudad Real. next to Truxillo. The reform was later extended to all 155 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. including one group o f Indian cimarrones. Not only did these new inhabitants fish and serve as sailors. 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. a 8 1 AGI Guatemala 637. Thus. Other black Caribbeans came to Guatemala as a result of adjustments to the Haitian revolution. In 1796. in the cabeceras of Gueguetenango and Totonicapan. Residencia ofToribio Farrera. Jose.

As the century progressed. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Napoleonic invasion and a constitutional monarchy. Aguirre. Antonio Gonzalez Saravia. AGI Guatemala 624. F. a growing part o f the increasingly diverse population. Not urban in the sense o f physical plant but urban in the sense o f people living in organizable areas. both for Spaniards and non-Spaniards. para. lived organized according to Spanish standards. Thus. pardos and mulattos was clear. 25-29. populations that could support such a municipal structure. and the importance for municipal organization for other communities. than ever before. 156 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. X. 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. going into the nineteenth century and the political upheavals introduced by a crisis in the Spanish political system brought on by war with France. . Meritos y servicios. more people accepted and used the Spanish system. which had recently been repopulated with Spanish immigrants. 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.port city on the bay o f Honduras. By the end o f the nineteenth century.82 Revival o f city life and government was an important development o f the Kingdom of Guatemala under the Bourbons. 82 AGI Guatemala 452. particularly the growing number o f ladinos. with its Creole and Spanish governors and administrators. How was such growth consonant with the establishment o f the intendancies. 1804. Central America looked increasingly urban.

San Jose.. Costa Rica.” 2 In Central America. By the mid 1780s. pp. corregimientos. simplify and supervise government. several o f the relaciones o f 1743 survive. beginning with Cuba. Explicitly abandoning a jumbled mix o f alcaldias mayores.” III Congreso Centroamericano de Historia. the Crown had gathered extensive data from Central American governors.2 In essence. Facultad de Derecho. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. See for example Maria de los Angeles Chaverri Mora. before determining the new districts.” 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. town councils and other leading members o f society in the 1740s and 1760s. Art 9. igualar enteramente la condicion de todos mis vasallos de Nueva Espafia. or districts (partidos ). 1785-1807 The financial reforms o f the 1760s proved just the first step in the Caroline decision to unify. consolidated after 1749. July 1996. the “political” intendancy reforms were just as “economic” as the overhaul of the tax and financial bureaucracy o f the 1760s and 1770s. 50. and derived from 1Ordenanza de Nueva Espana. Las ordenanzas de intendentes de Indias (Cuadro para su estudio) (Caracas.* As with other districts of Spanish America. 1786. ... and have been used as the basis for detailed analysis. and then initiated piecemeal in the Americas. the intendancy was to be comprised of equal and uniform sub-delegations. Chaverri uses the 1743 report o f alcalde mayor Pedro Ortiz 157 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. in Gisela Morazzani de Perez Enciso.Chapter 4 The Bourbon Town Council & the Spanish State: Uniformity and Regionalism: Part 2: The Intendancy Reforms. “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. and gobiemos. 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. “La Alcaldia mayor de Tegucigalpa en la Relacion Geografica de Don Baltasar Ortiz de Letona. 66. A similar reform had been tried in Spain in 1718. 1972). the intendancy. Universidad Central de Venezuela.

these new posts provided new opportunities for local elites. Seccion Antigua. . again diffusing and uniforming political power and territorialization. 103-106. 158 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 11. Central American asesores included Juan Miguel Bustamante (Guatemala). Spain’s 1749 recognition that this plethora of powers limitd the intendant’s efficacy and subsequent reduction o f the authority. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the asesor letrado. In theory. and Manuel Beltranena y Llano (Guatemala) o f Nicaragua (1816-21). AGI Guatemala 690. security (policia ). Diego Pilona (Nicaragua). Ortiz de Letona was also an important regidor in Guatemala City. the intendant had an advisor schooled in the law. o f Nicaragua in 1798 and of San Salvador in 1814. see John Lynch. Lynch also notes the parallel reduction o f viceroys and creation of captaincies general throughout Spain. Within each territory.’ As had been the case in 1718 Spain.3 In other words. The reports in BAGG for 1760s. As in the case of the earlier Bourbon expansion of the bureaucracy. Caja 3. the intendant’s authority was extensive. AGI Indiferente 109. Bourbon Spain. the intendant exercised ultimate responsibility in four areas: justice. to such a point that it paralleled that of the viceroy or captain general’s role in each ‘reino.4 de Letona. 4 The first asesores were all Spanish: Pedro Luque (Chiapas). and Jose Mariano Valero (Comayagua). 1989). Antonio Maria Aguilar (San Salvador). within a decade many came from the ranks o f the Kingdom of Guatemala’s growing number of lawyers. and the intendant would live in the capital that had been designated the fiscal center. 168-170. was not implemented in the Americas. to help him in his administrative and judicial functions.them. For a discussion. approving ecclesiastical appointments. 3 Surprisingly. Generally a military man. and defense. Although the first asesores letrados were Spanish lawyers. however. finance.pp. 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. KOG Emn 528-9. The intendancies were established around the areas of the cajas reales. Antonio Isidro Palomo (Guatemala) o f San Salvador (1799-). Correspondencia Oficial.. No. / 700-/808 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell. or authority over the church. AGN. the only regions that might escape integration within an intendancy were key military frontier outposts. On paper. the intendant often exercised the vice-patronato. 18131818.

57. Letter of 15 August 1784. 159 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Also. fT6-12. 1960). Leg 4797.40. 5 AGCA A1. Captain General Jose de Estacheria agglomerated many o f the 25 corregimientos. San Salvador (El Salvador) and Nicaragua. Costa Rica continued as a governorship (see Table 4. alcaldias mayores and gobemaciones into four intendancies: Chiapas. Hector H. Archbishop to Charles III. three royal orders mandated establishment o f four intendancies.Many o f the modem republics o f Latin America take their names and jurisdictions from these consolidated regions.1). Samayoa Guevara. p. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. . Comayagua (Honduras). in the course o f 1785-1787. The letter requested the establishment o f the “regime” o f intendancies in Guatemala. Implantation del Regimen de Intendentias en el Reino de Guatemala (Guatemala: Ministerio de Educacion Piiblica. In Central America.5 Acting on royal orders which represented the culmination o f a decade o f political deliberation.

Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Truxillo Tegucigalpa Sonsonate 160 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Nva.: Before & After Intendancies of 1787 City Villa Pueblo Provinces 1778 1796 1 1 56 Intendencia de Ciudad Real. Segovia. . Cartago Comayagua. 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. (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.1: Kingdom of Guatemala in the 8* C. Realejo.Table 4. 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. Nicaragua. Matagalpa. Rivas. Esteli. Leon.

(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. 21389. Exp. 251-252. “Noticias del Reyno de Guatemala en \778. 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 Miguel. 1800. Aldama reported on his inability to enforce his jurisdiction in the extended region. 233.1: Kingdom of Guatemala In the 18* C. pp. 1796: AGCA A1. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.25 Leg.”Anales de la Acadmia de Geografia e Historia de Guatemala XLIV (1990).Alcaldia Mayor P = Provincia * Suchitepequez not included here.Table 4. San 2 Vicente. covered the jurisdiction o f the alcaldia mayor o f San Salvador over the municipal districts o f San Salvador. 56. pp. Provinces Sources: 1778: Anonymous. the ayuntamiento o f San Miguel claimed jurisdiction over its 161 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. in Juarros. 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 . 1805: Juarros. Believe oversight ** Guatemala City not included because it was the point o f departure for the mails.: Before & After Intendancies of 1787 (continued) Ayuntamientos City Villa Pueblo Provinces 1778 1796 1805 San Antonio Such. San Salvador’s elevation without any alteration of the political jurisdiction was unique in Central America. who suggested dividing the district in two. 2603.6 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.Gobierao C = Corregimiento AM . On the one hand. Compendio. The first intendancy. that o f San Salvador. .

ff. the king instructed Captain General Galvez to apply the new Ordenanza de Intendentes written for New Spain (Mexico). and the Parish o f Osicalca. Art. the audience seconded Aldama's recommendation. the Council of the Indies expanded this instruction to include all four Central American intendancies. that is. proposing a tri-patite division o f the alcaldia mayor. p. This intendancy operated in its first year under the Instruction written for Buenos Aires (1782). the alcalde mayor did not believe he could appropriately govern the densely populated territory o f 80 leagues by 40 leagues.8 The territories o f all three o f these jurisdictions derived from already-established bishoprics and their circuits o f parishes. the fear o f loss of their extensive control o f justice and repartimiento. consolidated several smaller provinces into one larger unit. On the other. as well as of Comayagua and Leon (23 December 1786). In 1787. 9-v. Las ordenanzas de intendentes. (28 Dec 1786). 13v-5. Santa Ana. Text in Morazzani. They found that the current governor. and the three city councils o f the region opposed the division for particularist reasons. The fiscal of the Council of the Indies in 1776 asked for a report from the audience. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. . 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.7 two more cedulas had already defined the intendancies of Ciudad Real (20 September 1786). 162 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. the marginal note comments that Comayagua already had an intendancy. son-in-law o f the previous governor Cristobal de Galvez. AGI Guatemala 621. Before the recommendation o f San Salvador’s intendant. Chiapas incorporated the two alcaldias mayores o f Tuxtla and entire partido. 7 AGI Guatemala 690. to establish an intendancy in the neighboring jurisdiction o f Comayagua to address a drastic mining crisis could reach Spain. Marques de Sonora. but represented a new secular consolidation with important political and fiscal consequences. In 1779. 1774.” one each in San Salvador. 8 Ordenanzas 1786. These new provinces named the intendancies after their capital cities. and suggested putting “five meritorious subjects to administer Royal Justice.The other three intendancies. San Vicente. whose establishment followed directly on the heels o f that o f San Salvador.under the government of Don Juan Nepomuceno de Quesada. Transcription o f letter o f Intendant Josef Ortiz to Jose de Galvez.. Manuel Fadrique y Goyena. and not the S leagues adjudicated to it by the Laws o f the Indies. 50. Carta Francisco Aldama a la Audiencia de Guatemala. 28 July 1786. For Comayagua and Leon. of over 40 leagues. June 24. CG. The following year. San Miguel. Josef Ortiz. Guatemala City and the archbishop.

the 25 political jurisdictions had indeed been reduced. told him to incorporate the corregimientos o f Subtiava. Sacatepequez. in Guatemala’s northern reaches. Chiapas. Sonsonate. the reduction was not to four intendances and two govemorates but something more diffuse: fifteen political jurisdictions. Nicaragua and San Salvador and the govemorate o f Costa Rica. Juan de Ayssa. Escuintla. was allowed to assume authority over the alcaldia mayor of Tegucigalpa. one (Sonsonate) would dissociate from the country o f Guatemala established in 1823. on the Caribbean coast. Since most o f the official trade of the colony was conducted through the Caribbean ports. Although by 1821 Ferdinand VII had decided to erect an 9 AGI Guatemala 690. Chimaltenango. . the important alcaldias mayores and corregimientos o f Totonicapan. President and Junta Superior de Hacineda o f Guatemala to Marques of Sonora.10 In 1788. Leon assumed control over four corregimientos. Also not included in the intendancies were the military commandancies o f Omoa and Trujillo.9 And Comayagua. the non-inclusion o f the garrisons protecting those ports was an important omission. This region included. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and o f the Peten. the Kingdom o f Guatemala continued to have the uncentralized region of what would mostly become the state o f Guatemala.11 O f these jurisdictions. on the recommendation of the first intendant. Suchitepequez and Verapaz. Solola. Quezaltenango. Chiquimula. 14 August 1787. Matagalpa and Nicoya. Letter No. 7. Unfortunately for those who would find in the result the outlines o f five national states. to join that of El Salvador. in addition to the jurisdiction o f the capital city. 163 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. In addition to the intendancies o f Comayagua.Soconusco. The royal order naming the first intendant o f Nicaragua.

who served as a super-intendant.1 3 1 0 AGI 423. Native-born applicants included lawyers Antonio Isidro Palomo y Manrrique. a financial officer in Mexico. 1 2 AGI Guatemala 690. reaffirmed the existence o f the four intendancies. as well as the direct administration by the audiencia o f the district surrounding Asuncion. never implemented. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Dr. In 1803. p. but independence kept the decision from being implemented. and was evaluating nominees for the position o f intendant. with the exception o f the fortress o f Omoa which remained under military rule and reported directly to the kingdom capital. . military. Morazzani. these ten provinces continued to report directly to the colony’s supreme judicial. Manuel Jose Pavon y Munoz. 61. intendant of Nicaragua and son o f a former Captain General (Antonio Gonzalez Saravia. 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). a Honduran bureaucrat who edited a newspaper. There were also peninsulares lawyer Bartolome Vicente Pielago (o f Santander). 1 1 Samayoa Guevara. Implantation del Regimen de Intendencias. who had spent 43 years as a royal official in Guatemala. 164 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. p. 24 July 1791. independence cut short the official consolidation. The nomination o f November 1820 went to Jose Alexo Alegria. RC. San Pedro Sula was also added to the intendancy at this time. 54. a revised Ordenanza. 1 3 Ordenanzas Generales de Intendentes. economic and political authority. 6. Miguel Gonzalez Saravia. and civil servant Jose Velasco. The order explicitly included all territory within the bishopric o f Comayagua in the intendancy. Most o f the other applicants had had long and distinguished careers as civil servants and lawyers in Guatemala. and the audiencia. the captain general. Art. The final applicant. 18011811). and Maria Antonio Rivas.12 In the meantime. including as director o f the tobacco monopoly.intendancy for the Guatemalan districts. 1803. Among those under consideration for the post were Jose Cecilio del Valle. El Amigo de la Patria (1820-1821) and authored the September 15 1821 declaration of indpendence and was one of Central America’s most respected thinkers. Las ordenanzas de intendentes de Indias.

pp.Figure 12: Map of the Kingdom of Guatemala. . 72-3 (Courtesy of Mario Rodriguez). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. The Cadiz Experiment in Central America. 1786 8 0/ VJ < Source: Mario Rodriguez. ca.

the captain general. and after independence 166 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 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. instead o f a twotiered pyramid o f political and economic authority. . Within each intendancy. the kingdom in effect had five. to use the metaphor o f Chapter I . Among the confirmations was that of Mariano Prado (1805) as subdelegado o f Sensuntepeque (El Salvador). While the establishment o f intendancies reduced the number of provinces within the Kingdom o f Guatemala by slightly less than half. As in the case of the financial officials. Prado was then a young man and recent law graduate o f the universities of Leon. the result was decentralization of government rather than centralization. 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.Figure 13: Chains of Political Authority (Secular). For these officials. four of equal size and one “central” pyramid with the authority to channel irresolvable disputes to Spain for resolution. see AGI Guatemala 428-431. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Instead o f one head. Nicaragua and Guatemala who later would serve on the town council of San Vicente. da O br. the position o f subdelegado quickly became a sinecure for local elites. there were five pyramids. Kingdom o f Guatemala Preside nUCO Atadaencre S q b d ib p ltf or T tn itid e t. Or.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.

Las ordenanzas de intendentes de Indias. becoming central authority to a series o f mid-level districts. the king had revised the Ordenanzas o f Buenos Aires to have viceroys confirm the appointments o f Intendants. the secretary o f the San Vicente town council. recommended by the asesor. The fact that all the Central American intendancies had access. a hacendado of the same district. 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. 167 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. or supervisor o f the entire kingdom’s fiscal system. absolute decentralization quickly materialized. in fact. Morazzani. their own court and appeals systems. the king apparently felt pressure from his highest officials to reassure them o f their continuing importance. and Jose Munoz. whose conduct apparently left much to be desired. 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. with their own financial offices and (cajas). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Among the other pretendants to the job were Gabriel Fuentes. In the early years o f intendancies in the Americas. 54. 1 5 RO 5 August 1783 and RO 9 May 1788. If.intendant and his advisors to the kingdom capital for resolution. From 1783. on either Atlantic or Pacific coasts. meant that the center could often conveniently be ignored if local interests found such to be to their benefit. . and their own religious and local administrations. in theory. p. by assigning to him the role o f superintendente.1 5 become a statesman and president. their own military organizations. to important ports revived by 1770s legislation that opened trade among the Americas as well as o f foreign imports. for the most part the new intendancies were gubematorially self-sufficient.

the other cities in the district—in this case San Vicente and San Miguel— thus took over the role of provincial second string. 168 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. but this did not reduce the complications that such competition would create. the intendancies did serve as the precursors to Central America’s post-independence states. However. Jose Ortiz. 16 AGI Guatemala 690. just as the intendancies consolidated a regional unity against a distant capital. viewing the capital where the intendant resided. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The competition was closer to home. The ayuntamiento of San Salvador on 29 May heard Ortiz’ oath and gave him official possession o f his jurisdiction. . Letter o f Ayuntamiento o f San Salvador. Thus. in 1786.1 6 On the one hand. perhaps. exchanged favors and interacted with residents as a source o f competition. because residents learned to address concerns first to the local intendant. there are two ways to interpret the ceremonial implications o f San Salvador’s recpetion o f their first intendant. and not the audiencia or captain general in the kingdom capital. On the other hand. 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.In this sense. 29 May 1787. This experience tended to confirm local rivalries rather than to foster alliances against the center. regional capitals now had access to the kind o f official who could demand for them favors and services that in the past Guatemala City’s unique relationship with the president had preserved as its particular bailiwick.

Las ordenanzas de intendentes de Indias for side-by-side comparison o f the Buenos Aires (1782). 169 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1' See Morazzani. de 23 de septiembre de 1803. but includes an exhaustive and invaluable reference to complementary royal decrees and orders issued to supplement. Legajo 2245. the responsibilities o f city government were not directly compromised by the Ordenanza o f 1786.1 7 None o f Central America’s Spanish town councils was suppressed nor its personnel changed. de 28 de enero de 1782. Nor were the titanic clashes and rivalries among the dozen significant Spanish towns the only change in city influence. such as a 1789 cedula on cemetery management. as we saw in the previous chapter.1 8 Oversight o f municipal money management and judicial authority passed from the province’s governor to the intendant. Certainly. If the posts of many traditional governors were abolished. with demands for stricter and more regular bookkeeping. Nueva Espana (Mexico) (1786) and general (1803) Ordenanzas de Intendentes. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Expediente 16218. In fact.City Government and the Intendancy The intendancy reforms had a significant impact on city government. 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. However. This legal work has linle analysis of the content of each instruction.2. nor its more thorough revision in 1803. in certain aspects municipal influence was enhanced. no functions or tasks were assigned away from existing local authorities. Yet this had always been the case. . 1789. with the establishment o f the intendancies.4 Real Cedula. Later legislation. correct or abrogate specific articles in the Ordenanzas. Real Ordenanza para el establecimiento e instruccion de Intendentes de Ejercito y Provincia en el Reino de Nueva Espana. the cities and towns participated as only one element in a more elaborate government. and Ordenanza general para el gobierao e instruccion de Intendentes de Ejercito y Provincia. indicated that the king still considered city government an important branch o f his overseas state. de 4 de diciembre de 1786. 1 8 AGCA 1. although not the reduction o f municipal importance and authority commonly asserted.

In addition. particularly in the case of silver-mining town Tegucigalpa. See also Marvin Barahona. 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 . the new law called for Spanish settlements without ayuntamientos to elect two alcaldes annually. was that one intendant stood more directly between several cabildos and the captain general or audience. as we saw with the Salvadoran cities in the previous chapter—the alliances were specific to a particular issue and did not forge enduring relationships. and one who might not reside locally. While abolishing alcaldias mayores and corregimientos. What was novel with the creation o f the intendancies. 649. 1996). towns and places (lugares) would keep their traditional authority in matters o f justice. 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. existing alcaldes ordinarios of Spanish cities. more than one town and its elites had to vie for the favor o f a single governor. it ordered the proliferation o f municipal government. 623. and 845.or if they did. 1 9 This fascinating struggle is well documented in AGI Guatemala 417. La alcaldia mayor de Tegucigalpa bajo el regimen de intendencias (Tegucigalpa: Institute Hondurefio de Antropologia e Historia. 170 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. in the last half of the eighteenth century.Certainly. . For the first time in colonial Central America. Instead o f disbanding city councils. however. Such reduction in influence was not well received. 496. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Under the new regulation. the number o f town councils that were active—and the evidence o f their activity and energy—demonstrably increased.

in Morazzani. although Spanish authorities would still be represented by a judge (juez espanol) who would apparently serve the same functions as the former corregidor. this increase of town government did not directly reduce the influence o f former cabeceras o f provinces. The problem with the municipal proliferation was that those who lost territorial control through the creation o f new autonomous districts—the mayors o f the principal Spanish cities—could be expected to resist a diffusion of their authority. 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. Art 12-13. In theory.21 In other words. to avoid “disturbances. 2 1 Ordenanza de Nueva Espana. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. appeals and uprisings” a Spanish judge would preside. pp. 68-69.20 Indian pueblos as well had their municipal organization reinforced. 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. pp. In all judicial cases. the Crown’s 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. such as Tegucigalpa. 171 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. other towns would have their subdelegates name govemors-tax collectors (gobemadores cobradores). consonant with the earlier policies to extend official presence into the far reaches o f the countryside. Yet. Las ordenanzas de intendentes. and to demand from the same naturales their tribute paid to mi soberania" would continue to do so. as we shall see below. 20 Ordenanza de Nueva Espafia.. 74-77. . Las ordenanzas de intendentes. there would be more local government rather than less. This approach. Article 13 held that those pueblos that had. once again promoted decentralization rather than unified districts. Art 1 1 in Morazzani. 1786. 1786.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.

many o f whom presumably came to the Americas for other reasons and hoped to stay. Mantillas was a retired captain o f militias. Art. 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. 1786. of recommendation o f 18 April 1808. My hunch would be that locals filled the less militarily important posts. however. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23 Sketchy information indicates that subdelegados nominees were drawn both from local elites but also from Spaniards. que corao aquellos jueces administren justicia y cumplan las mismas obligaciones y cargas que en su distrito les eran peculiares y les estaban anexas. para facilitarles mas el desempeno de su ministerio y precaver dudas y disputas con motivo de su subordinacion y dependencia de los intendentes. For example. As clarified in Article 41 of the Ordenanza General of 1803. by supporting the proliferation o f local governments and subdelegates beyond the traditional large town. Aprobacion de 18 November 1808. the cabecera of a former alcaldia mayor or corregimiento would receive a subdelegate (subdelegado de intendente). subdelegates named by the new intendants proliferated in towns which had previously had lieutenant governors. Letter 326. Captain General Antonio Gonzalez Saravia. but o f Spanish provenance. Las ordenanzas de intendentes.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. and sometimes friction over jurisdiction. in Morazzani. and thus retain its centrality to regional finance and justice in its traditional hinterland. 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. and consular deputy. led to reduced sway by the previous provincial capital.” See Ordenanza de Nueva Espana. 172 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.22 In practice. 41. observando la instruccion particular que de ellas se les da y va unida a esta Ordenanza. mayor o f Leon. se pondran subdelegados. Certainly. . reducing the status of those in the former provincial capitals to equivalency with the rest of the cabecerasP These establishment of these new justices. in 1808 the President’s nomination of Manuel Mantillas as subdelegate in Segovia. Nicaragua was approved. a military man who had been a member o f Nicaragua’s militas. 69-70. former syndic. AGI Guatemala 431. combined with that o f the mayors in the smaller towns o f each district. pp. and those most important to city economies. He had replaced Antonio de Arce.

and then report regularly to higher officials. 25 AGI Guatemala 572 contains the causa of the city of Granada. following on the heels of the 1785-1788 stripping o f the Granada (Nicaragua) of its traditional hinterland. B oulder Lynn Rienner Publishers.24 A full-frontal assault on individual city jurisdictions—the monstrous jurisdictions bewailed by the audiencia in the 1770s in the alcaldia mayor o f San Salvador—would have mobilized the major towns and cities o f the isthmus to respond directly. which lost 27 leagues o f jurisdiction between 1785 and 1788. to be made up o f the first alcalde ordinario.. . 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. City Councils. 1750-1850.or thirty-league districts.” p. and the Struggle for Power in Yucatan. “The Bourbon Reforms.25 If the unexpected dividends of the provisions o f the intendancy were so effective in Central America. two aldermen (regidores). However. 1994. 65. twenty. 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. Mexico in the Age o f Democratic Revolutions. One regulation created the junta municipal. ed. This indirect assault on “customary” privilege and jurisdiction. 173 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. apparently met with little concerted resistance.. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 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. and the sindico. the city council was expected to enact its own reforms.” in Jaime E. Patch. 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. 17701796. Rodriguez O.more nail in the coffin of the bigger towns’ pretensions to exercise jurisdiction in their old ten-.

in Morazzani. 1786. p. Arts. in Morazzani.29 When the theory translated into practice. 174 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. this regulation was not in effect in the 18lh century. 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). Title 13. 1786. 34-36.and amounts o f income and expenses o f each settlement. Art 40. The new Spanish subdelegate in the pueblos cabeceras de meros indios received a similar abjuration in Article 44 . Book 4. as well as all other attempts at persistent government oversight. Las ordenanzas de intendentes. to be paid 1l A % from the collected monies. Crown and intendant ' 6 Ordenanza de Nueva Espana. if a city did not voluntarily implement the measures o f the Ordenanzas. the junta municipal was made up of city council members. . 9091. *' Ordenanza de Nueva Espana. Law 6. and to replace such practices inimical to the royal treasury with disinterested administration o f justice. pp. and that auctions o f city lands or buildings (propios) were made public for thirty days prior to a sale or lease. the cities o f Central America learned to turn this. Las ordenanzas de intendentes. After all. See Recopilacion. Furthermore.26 Each junta was to name a new collector o f municipal debts annually. Although a RC o f 16 May 1573 ordered annual reports on municipal propios to be sent to the Council o f Indies. to their favor. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.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. 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.27 This junta was also charged with ensuring that prices for foodstuffs were both fairly and reasonably set. the reports would reflect local circumstances more than disinterested accounting. 92.

a mere three years after implementation o f the intendancy reforms. and a consequent reduction in actual interference in local finances. Art 44. a notable reduction o f innovative zeal led to appointment o f less active and less confrontational officials to Central America. rather than the city’s preffered method o f raising taxes. Guatemala City successfully resisted changing its system of fiscal administration until 1801.30 In fact. Exp. the oidor behind this control and an investigation to the city’s long-term debt to the real hacienda o f half a million pesos. who had been a fixture o f municipal government since the 1780s. Derogacion. in Morazzani. a royal decree abrogated one o f the articles o f the 1786 Ordenanzas. to come up with a regulation. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. including the second Marques o f Aycinena. Jose Yanez. Fiscal Yanez to Minister of Gracia y Justicia. pp. 94. in a report to the Crown on 21 June 1809 confirmed that Camacho’s strict fiscal regimen had been the start of the city’s enmity towards Camacho. 10. Art 37. was not popular. Instruccion Reservada. 30 AGI Guatemala 624. in Morazzani. Las ordenanzas de intendentes. 21 June 1809. 4779. Three aldermen. In that year. 28 Ordenanza de Intendencia (Buenos Aires) 175 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.faced an uphill battle enforcing them. The Tribunal de Real Hacineda. Art. The other two resignees were Manuel Pavon and Jose Antonio Batres. with the death o f Charles HI in 1788. .3 1 Such official watering down o f unwelcome provisions was matched by local 28 Ordenanza de Nueva Espana. 91-92. 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. 29 Ordenanza de Nueva Espana. Antonio Cardenas. RO 14 September 1788. 31 AGCA Al. commissioned a member o f the audience. 1786. 1786.2. pp. 2-5. resigned rather than submit to strict accounting. Francisco Camacho. The fiscal of the audiencia.4 Leg. f. when a royal decree insisted that it establish an ordinance o f propios y arbitrios (holdings and taxes). in face o f the city’s obstinacy. Camacho. found himself run out of town by order o f the captain general a year later. which required that the town council receive approval from the audience for investing small amounts o f its monies.. who “immediately” renounced their offices. 41279. p. Las ordenanzas de intendentes. The recommended reduction in costs to meet fees. and who as standard-bearer (alferez real) most frequently had occasion to seek reimbursement for ceremonial expenses. 6.

Central American cities had collected most o f their income from rent on the city propios. however. However. found himself railroaded out o f town in 1808. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33 AGI Guatemala 624. 21 June 1809. 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 region’s cities to prepare and its intendants to submit the reports. 9-10.. city councilors learned to increase the municipal balance sheet. Under the Ordenanzas. Traditionally. Instruccion reservada. as they turned from reliance on propios alone to propios and arbitrios. the single official in the accounting office in the capital had not reviewed these reports since 1794.” Yanez also pointed out that for “over a half century” the council owed the royal treasury around a half 176 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. . Rarely invoked in the Hapsburg years o f the colonial period. Francisco Camacho. A less frequently used income generator was the arbitrio. it did. “Si el cavildo (sic) de Guatemala le aborrese es porque le di’p reglamentos para. which included stalls in the central market.buildings leased to individuals and other government institutions. foster a shift o f municipal funding. Central America’s town councils turned increasingly to the arbitrio as a source o f income after the intendancy reforms. a royally approved local tax on goods bought and sold in the city. or holdings. with the 32 AGI Guatemala 624. In 1808. and ejidos..”33 If the fiscal system under the intendancy increased supervision o f municipal spending more in theory than in practice. Fiscal Yaiiez to Minister of Gracia y Justicia.32 This same official. or common lands rented to city residents. pp.resistance to implementation.economisar (sic) sus fondos y propios. in large part because o f his efforts to get the Guatemala City cabildo to “economize its funds and holdings. Francisco Camacho.

The particular taxes approved by the Spanish Crown were often on items used by the general populace. 177 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. and charged to small traders within a fifty-league radius. who planned to use the funds to improve city administration and pay some officials. it is not surprising that the council sought to rid themselves of such a reformer. The new taxes proved an easy and long-standing innovation. if not a judicial.34 This new form of taxation revived several failing treasuries. presence in the countryside. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ciudad Real in Chiapas. continued to reach into and affect the countryside. then. two important ingredients in local liquor manufacture. including those o f the capital. to which their produce constituted the principal contribution. and Sonsonate. Guatemala City received permission in 1795 to establish a four-year tax on panela and sugar. . 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. 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. If Camacho had raised this point. Comayagua in Honduras. such as panela (block sugar) and soap. 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. Whatever the rural population’s response to the new arbitrios. The fiscal reach o f each city.encouragement o f the intendants and their staff. which in some way made up for the million pesos. Although taxpayers often lived in the countryside.

178 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. rather than the 100 leagues suggested by the audience. 35 AGI Guatemala 415.p . 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. 36 AGI Guatemala 416. women’s jail and grain warehouse. as well as a tax on pool halls. After a four-year extension. pp. went to fund short-term needs: the purchase o f uniforms for the local militia and construction and repairs o f the city’s hospital. El ayuntamiento colonial. 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. El ayuntamiento colonial. The royal order confirming the decision was issued 20 October 1804.35 This ‘temporary’ tax still existed in 1816. town hall. The proceeds o f this tax. The audiencia. with the proviso that only towns within a fifty-league radius pay the taxes. a local grain liquor. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. construction and hospital because of the benefit to commerce and public utility. the city recommended that rather than abolish the tax. Consulta. 106-107. Yet the city found a way to extend the tax well beyond its initial period. despite a denunciation o f the Consulado de Comercio. 107. Consulta 16.lost right to collect the official liquor tax. when. . because it was unlikely that the principally poor inhabitants o f such an immense territory would really seek help from the hospital if sick. 34 Chinchilla Aguilar. approved the change in 1804. The hospital had lost its principal source o f income with the abolishment o f the tax on chicha. 3 March 1816. confirms that the colonial council rarely had recourse to imposition o f arbitrios and lists a handful o f exceptions. Council o f the Indies. See also Chinchilla Aguilar. and then the king. the king recommended continuation o f its support for uniforms.36 While the hospital and militia costs were ongoing. 20 September 1804.

the Council recommended application o f a general royal circular on taxation of 14 September 1788. . 290. cacao. which rejected the audiencia 's approval o f new arbitrios for Comayaga on four important local products: cattle. the Council o f the Indies allowed the tax. 39 AGI Guatemala 525. because the principal improvements—construction o f a town hall and militia barracks— would benefit the city more than the province. 31 July 1804 fora summary of the actions from 1799-1804.38 The Council also insisted that future taxes not be levied without express permission o f the audience and the Council. 7 September 1800. would approve any new ordenanzas about arbitrios in the kingdom.In the provinces. Comayagua. see AGCA A 1. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 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. but this proposal was disapproved because it did not take into 37 AGI Guatemala 413. This consultation resulted in a Council decision that the Audience. the intendant o f Leon. since the Consulado de Comercio claimed that the intendant was respecting a royal order o f 7 September 1800. sugar and anil.39 In 1801.23 1651-10286.37 The intendant of Honduras proposed a similar tax on the intendancy in 1799 in order to increase revenues for the capital city. 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 Real’s revenues so that the city councilors would not pay deficits from their pockets. El Intendente de Chiapas propone un impuesto para mejorar los propios y arbitrios de Ciudad Real. Jose Salvador. also proposed a series of taxes in his districts. not the Tribunal de Real Hacienda. A 23 February 1798 royal order had chastised the audience for implementing new arbitrios 179 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. but only on goods bought and sold within the city limits. Consulta 9. Consulta 8 April 180. approved in 1802. and to increase the city revenue enough to pay the thousand-peso salary o f the new adviser. For text o f the royal order. 1791. When other towns in the jurisdiction protested this practice. In this case. 38 AGI Guatemala 415. f. There was some confusion in Madrid in 1804 on whether Comayagua was charging the taxes. Consulta 13.

2 Legajo 4573. 4 1 AGI Guatemala 628.41 Although city councils and intendants might clash over questions o f oversight or direction of civic projects. Consulta 13. RC. the pueblo it reperesents. Such alliances were consolidated when intendants. 31 July 1804. Pedro Aparici. “The council. San Salvador’s syndic in 1803 found an ally for the city in its request for reinstatement o f an annual indigo fair. Interestingly. the town was not allowed to tax landowners two reales for each caballeria o f land. and the without first seeking royal approval. 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 literature’s emphasis on American resistance to the intendants. Draft RC (ND) and report o f Contador General. Expediente 39489. see AGI Guatemala 415. Madrid. . For a discussion o f this order. 40 AGCA A 1. which had met in the intendancy’s town o f San Vicente.account variations in the population and riches o f the different towns in the intendancy. 10 June 1801. town hall and militia barracks. supported city petitions that sought to increase provincial economic or political autonomy from the kingdom capital.40 Even districts that remained independent o f the intendancies participated in the revival of this form o f income. like Luis Martinez Navarrete o f San Salvador. 180 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 8 November 1808. that had allowed the indigo growers o f the province to increase their bargaining power with Guatemala City’s merchants. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sonsonate received permission to tax cattle providers and urban property owners in 1808 to fund construction o f a new prison.

Interim Intendant Luis Martinez Navarrate to S.” joined to urge the revival o f the fair as advantageous not only to themselves but also the royal coffers.M. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. as subdelegado o f Matagalpa. San Salvador. Josef Echeverria. Confirmation o f Estevan de Rivera. regidor of Leon. Confirmation o f Joseph Echeverria. San Salvador. AGI Guatemala 430. AGI Guatemala 430. Confirmation o f Phelipe Mariano Vidaunre. 181 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. merchants and landowners like Pedro Martir de Zelaya. Confirmation of the appointment o f Joachin Vigil. Such was the case in the selections o f miners. subdelegado of Tegucigalpa. 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. 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. regidor and alcalde ordinario o f San Vicente. 13 October 1803. Joaquin Vigil. where the captain general noted he was a hacendado yet still the most idoneo for the job (Letter 180. regidor of Granada. Seccion Colonial. 16 February 1803. receptor o f sales tax. members o f the Tegucigalpa. within the former district o f Tegucigalpa. as subdelegado of Masaya. 3 December 1804. Mariano Prado. Caja 197. 18 August 1807. on whose town council he held a permanent seat. 17 February 1804. San Salvador. Confirmation of Mariano Prado as subdelegado o f Sensuntepeque. often members of the town councils that had lost direct jurisdiction over the countryside. and Phelipe Mariano Vidaurre. 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. merchant and hacendado Pedro Martir de Zelaya was one o f the first subdelegados named to mining village Yuscaran (1789-1795). At the time o f his nomination in 1802. Captain General Gonzalez Saravia). Rivera was a mayor o f Comayagua. because Garcia was a lawyer from Guatemala and 42 AGI Guatemala 722. ANH. Numerous Crown confirmations indicate that this practice was perfectly acceptable. 20 January 1803. Province o f Comayagua.. Granada. Comayagua and San Vicente town councils. as well as the universality o f the practice. Miner.intendant. as subdelegado o f Cojutepeque. Estevan Rivera. Leon.42 The alliances were consolidated when intendants used their authority to appoint local elites. . as their subdelegates.

3 December 1807.45 and the cities and towns which became peripheral municipalities when incorporated into a many-city intendancy. for example. the Central American capital did not produce the same kind o f global document that Lima. some capital cities resisted the efforts o f an intendant. Captain General Gonzalez Saravia to S. (Madrid: Universidad Complutense: Departamento de Historia Moderna.local “merchants. presented to the Crown in the 1790s.M. 2. 467-477. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Conflicts also included resentment o f places that lost privileges and status as a result o f the reform. pp. The Cabildo in Peru. in Peru. based on studies o f colonial capitals rather than a consideration of the differing impact in capitals and provinces. 1987). 1786. 182 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.. in fact. rather than broader authority. perhaps because o f the Peruvian experience. This myth.” in Coloquio Intemacional Carlos I I I y su Siglo. however. . couched. roads and other civic which Moore shows how Lima resisted intendant interference and regional cities welcomed and lauded the efforts o f their new officials. "El cabildo de Caracas y la intendencia: un enfrentamiento significativo. praised their intendants. Letter 304. whose energy. and praised them sincerely. p. in these terms. in Morazzani. See. Maria Teresa Zubiri Marin. leaving the institutional critiques to come from those whose authority was truly threatened by the powerful new governors: the captains general and viceroys. Actas. 34. 155-170 . 46 Ordenanza de Nueva Espana. Art. either demanded more municipal activity from those disinclined to meet the needs for new bridges.46 44 AGI Guatemala 430. 45 See Moore.44 The kind o f conflict that did emerge—and 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. persists in recent scholarship. 90. As the work of these scholars shows. Vol. As no intendant was established in Guatemala (or Mexico). pp. Most capitals. Las ordenanzas de intendentes. vecinos and cattle ranchers” wanted the post because o f the “real monopoly” on the meat market (abastos) the job provided.

. in the first instance. y se evita la confusion que siempre causa la diversidad de jurisdiccionesy ministros. Las ordenanzas de intendentes. to reduce the distance rural populations had to travel for economic and political justice. o f This article stated that cities in which a viceroy or audiencia was located remained dependent on these authorities. This loss of status had two serious consequences for the town: reduced access to the products and services o f the former hinterland. according to regulations o f the Recopilacion de Indias. The principal subdelegation o f Tegucigalpa was thus reduced to a jurisdiction. 47 The fate of the former districts addressed in Art. Cedros and Danli. the subdelegado assigned to Tegucigalpa in place of the alcalde mayor. which stated that unless otherwise specified “los demas corregimientos y alcaldias mayores de toda la comprension. Aguanqueterique. and fiscal independence. with no alteration in their jurisdictions. Per article 41 of the Ordenanza General o f 1803.” (p 66) Article 11 continues that as the districts are suppressed.” Morazzani. Nacaome. 9 o f the 1786 Ordenanzas de Nueva Espafia. para facilitarles mas el desempeno de su ministerio y precaver dudas y disputas con motivo de su subordinacion y dependencia de los intendnetes. 68-70. 68). the cabecera o f a former alcaldia mayor or corregimiento would receive a subdelegado de intendente. . which lost its status as a regional capital when it was adopted into the intendancy o f Comayagua in 1788. conforme vayan vacando. Pedro Martin de Zelaya. observando la instruccion particular que de ellas se les da y va unida a esta Ordenanza. and even towns without ayuntamientos were under the new laws allowed to have elected alcaldes (p. o cumpliendo su tiempo. pp. “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. Tegucigalpa native and cabildantes.. recommended the establishment of various lieutenants in additional towns. y entro tanto estaran inmediatamente sujetos y subordinados a los respectivos intendentes de su distrito. se pondran sudelegados.47 Intendant Juan Nepomuceno Quesada agreed. 183 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. royal jurisdiction would fall to the intendant. el gobiemo de todas las provincias. Such was the case with the town o f Tegucigalpa. naming lieutenants in Choluteca. que como aquellos jueces administren justicia y cumplan las mismas obligaciones y cargas que en su distrito les eran peculiares y les estaban anexas. The alcaldes ordinarios o f Spanish cities towns and places ( lugares ) would keep their traditional authority. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.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. los provistos por mi en unas y otros. y estos les subdelegaran sus encargos para que asi se uniforme desde Iuego .

he wrote that his predecessor (also a Tegucigalpa alderman). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1793. Then -subdelegado in Tegucigalpa. 16 April 1803. pp. by refusing to answer any correspondence on this point.49 A related concern o f Tegucigalpa’s elites was the growth o f competing sources of local political power within the territory of what had always been the alcaldia mayor. had commissioned an agent to determine Danli’s jurisdiction. 49 By 1803. Estevan Rivera. Mario Felipe Martinez Castillo. 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. San Antonio. and Santa Lucia. but in the entire parish o f Danli. immediately sought to establish their authority not just within a 4-league jurisdiction. Antonio Tranquilino de la Rosa.'' AGI Guatemala 629. Tegucigalpa's wealthiest bachelor and an important political figure who had been active in creating the town council. Manuel Jose Midence. Testimonio del expediente sobre.. Pedro Martin de Zelaya. 242-244. who quickly marshaled arguments to convince the Crown to restore its previous district and status. August 8. In 1799. 184 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 146-147. from this day forward you are assessed a fine commensurate with the fault. alderman Manuel Jose Midence. 1796. pp. Anguiano al Subdelegado de Tegucigalpa.the mines o f Yuscaran. who had set the territory at five leagues. 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.graduar el legitimo valor que deva fijarse a los oficios de Regidores (1804). Copia del Ynforme del Subdelgado de Thegucigalpa. Taken from AGCA A l . it is highly likely that the individual was in fact Pedro Martir de Zelaya. Among the city councilors o f Tegucigalpa who served as subdelegados between 1787 and 1800 were Zelaya. . and Francisco Antonio Gonzalez Travieso. a mining and cattle ranching area. a wider territory. resisted these pretensions. 60. the two new mayors o f the town o f Danli. His letter o f reprimand clarified that “since you do not want to comply with any providencia o f this government. For example. 1982). f.48 This did not sit well with other Tegucigalpa elites. Boletin del Archivo General de Guatemala 7:4 (1941-2). Even though elites were named to serve as the new subdelegados. Exp. l Leg. Apuntamientos para una historia colonial de Tegucigalpa y su alcaldia mayor (Tegucigalpa: Editorial Universitaria. that he imposed a fine for recalcitrance. which would further shrink the capital’s authority. 13455. Manuel Antonio Vasquez y Rivera. Geronimo Zelaya. The 48 Although the published document indicates that Pedro Martin de Zelaya was the subdelegado..

intendant himself had named yet a third Tegucigalpa alderman. spulicad Vuestra Senoria mande senalarles su territorio . Francisco Hariza. 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.” 50 By stripping Tegucigalpa o f its role as provincial capital. Although the “powerful” householders of San Salvador had already contributed 3100 pesos to the work. 146-147. as each subdelegation chose sides in the various decisions to be made on the region’s political internal and external constitution. It was not only the former capitals o f alcaldias mayores that found fault with the system. and elevating additional settlements to the status o f self-governance. ereccion y confirmacion en Villa. p. para que no se entrometan al de la subdelegacion. When the Intendant of San Salvador wanted to raise funds to build a bigger women’s prison. the intendant. erection and confirmation as a Villa. the implementation o f the Intendancy act created a source o f tension which would spill over in the independence era. and also suggested that several small taxes be 50 A G C A A 3. which lacks the privilege o f an ayuntamiento.” 185 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Exp 5344. Ignacio Santiago y Ulloa (who would be ousted ten years later) expected the cost to be double this amount. on a similar mission. Midence in 1799 protested in the name of the council o f Tegucigalpa. por carecer del privilegio de ayuntamiento. . Apuntamientos. he asked the town councils o f all three towns to contribute another 500 pesos each from their funds. pues de este modo se obviaran diferencias que perturb an la paz y buena armonia. he recommended extending a tax on cattle levied in San Salvador. which believed even 4 leagues to be “excessive in territory for the mayors o f the pueblo o f Danli. transcribed in Martinez Castillo. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. y como a tal pueblo. San Miguel and San Vicente to the rest o f the province’s cabeceras. To make up the difference.3 Legajo 44. “que aun las mismas cuatro leguas son exesivas de territorio a los Alcaldes del pueblo de Danli.

RC. however. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 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. 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. 22 March 1803. San Vicente’s ayuntamiento also said that collecting such a tax was not only not particularly useful to the jurisdiction. the new “centralized” province symbolically. to add insult to injury. .52 While Tegucigalpa lost its status as capital o f an alcaldia mayor with its own name. a town with a failing agricultural economy whose own town 5 1 AGI Guatemala 534. as well as institutionally. Defending the district’s poor.charged in the markets and collected from Indians and ladinos from neighboring towns. In replicating the former relationships o f the provinces to the capital within the intendancies. slighted former districts by erasing their geographic salience. 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. 186 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. but that collecting o f taxes from the poor artisans would cost more than they would produce. thus could contribute to resentment o f more visible and concentrated government. but would also deprive the public of goods it needed funds to purchase. annexation further meant incorporation into a polity named after Comayagua. Although San Salvador itself was less than enthusiastic about a new jail. on the grounds that the prison would serve women from the whole province. San Vicente’s town council argued that not only did the town funds not suffice to pay for local public works.

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. 1785-1817. claiming an inability to pay. since the 1740s. presumably to defuse tension between intendancy capital Leon and its internal rival. Similarly. dating back to the conquest.53 When the intendancies became states after independence.” No decision is included with the case. could not consider itself to be the capital as clearly as the cities o f Comayagua or San Salvador. the intendancy o f Leon was often referred to as Nicaragua. a conquest-era provincial name. the officials o f the royal treasury had alternated their seat between the two cities. p. 187 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. the captain general of Guatemala queried the Council o f the Indies whether with the “new establishment o f Indias.council had been in disarray until the intendant galvanized its revival. saw the need to extend this alternation. throughout the closing years o f Spanish imperial rule. the seat o f the diocese. both colonial and Spanish officials alternated in referring to the intendancy as both Comayagua and Honduras. With no evident discussion. 1. Comayagua and Leon were discarded as possible names for the new polities. in Morazzani. Instead. this apparently minor point was permanently resolved. had been Honduras. Comayagua’s profile would rise. In a letter o f 15 May 1817. Leon. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Matias de Galvez. which continued at least until 1817. 53 AGI Guatemala 690. 50. when the Council o f the Indies revisited the issue. 52 Ordenanza de Nueva Espafta. to be replaced by the equally traditional yet less municipally associative names o f Honduras and Nicaragua. 1786. which has collected the original case from 1785. Consulta. Art. An alternate name for the province of Comayagua. Las ordenanzas de intendentes. For. to have a lieutenant in Granada to collect its share o f tribute payments and other sources o f income. Granada. in part due to Tegucigalpa’s silver and its former districts’ tobacco production. . in 1785.

. succeeded in resuming its status as an alcaldia mayor in 1812. p. 68. as had happened with the fiscal reforms two decades earlier. By deciding not to establish an intendancy in the region closest to the audiencia and Asuncion. the intendancy reforms became subject to the same negotiation-uponimplementation that had characterized Spanish-American policy since the conquest. Tegucigalpa. 184. Las ordenanzas de intendentes.As a result o f complaints. The cabildo in Peru. were rapidly sacrificed when either common sense or significant resistance dictated. Moore cites the general cedula as being issued in 1800. San Salvador and Leon. 188 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. pp. 44. in Morazzani. Art. which called for a mayor to serve the first year as the second alcalde and the second year as the first alcalde. after almost fifteen years o f bureaucratic appeals. uniformity and the principle of regal inflexibility. see AGI Guatemala 414. as in all other Bourbon projects. Discussion o f opposition to the same article by the towns o f Peru is discussed in Moore. 181. uniformity was sacrificed in other areas that generated significant criticism. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.^ Perhaps the only city that found its relationship to power unchanged with the intendancies was that o f Guatemala City. Spain’s politicians spared this region the change that induced town councils to quarrel. In the intendancy reforms. 1786. When Antigua Guatemala (Santiago) 54 Ordenanza de Nueva Espana. led to first a partial and then full revocation o f the article. Opposition to Article 1lo f the Ordenanzas. For the protests o f Asuncion. 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. If the king refused to modify many o f the Ordenanza’ s articles regarding municipal finance.

the fiscal reforms of the 1760s led to the proliferation o f offices and officers o f the real hacienda as well. further opportunities opened up. In 1793. Tulane University.. Factoria de tabacos (1767). The Direction General de Alcabala (1763). Santiago’s religious importance had increased dramatically when in 1744 the diocese became an archdiocese responsible for the religious well-being o f the entire kingdom. Efemerides. Asuncion responded generously by returning ejido lands to the old capital. ecclesiastically and culturally separate from the distant viceroyalty o f New Spain. Jr.55 The consolidation by the Bourbons o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala as an autonomous jurisdiction. and its principal officers elected annually from among the merchants o f the capital—the same men who controlled the ayuntamiento 56 Guatemala City received royal permission to establish a Sociedad de 55 Pardo. As noted above. . As provincial elites flocked to the capital to study and seek work. 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. 1962. a Consulado de Comercio (Merchant’s Guild) was established to improve commerce and commercial justice in the kingdom. “The Consulado de Comercio o f Guatemala. This promotion heralded the district’s religious as well as secular autonomy from the powerful but distant Viceroyalty o f New Spain. 189 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Contaduria Mayor (1771) and Administration de Correos (1768) all had their main branches in Santiago and then Asuncion. fiscally.” PhD. see Ralph Lee Woodward. Its headquarters was naturally in Guatemala City. politically. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.finally achieved cabildo status in 1799. as well as a list o f its officers. 56 For the most complete discussion o f the consulado. 1793-1871.

.2) Sales o f council seats. in its brief hedyay the Sociedad —with over 150 members from the highest ranks o f church. RI). government and society—had fostered agriculture.55 Both the merchants’ guild and economic society had representatives in the isthmus’ other cities. education and the arts. The paper was published from 1797 to 1816 and demonstrated the capital’s intellectual and cultural hegemony. For a list of 41 men who in the 1790s served in both ayuntam iento and consulado . and the Gazeta had correspondents and readers in the provinces. if not greater care. Lists 1 and 2. Guatemala. 62-645. to staff the cabildos of the Kingdom. do not tell the whole story of local interest in municipal service. the kingdom opened its first Colegio de Abogados in 1810 to vet the lawyers allowed to practice and present cases to the audience. Providence. the Gazeta de Guatemala. 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.Amantes de la Patria in 1795. at least two of them revived—were sold between 1794 and 1807 (see Table 4. 190 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Over ninety seats on 14 town councils—two o f them new. Intendancy and City Council Another myth o f the intendancy reforms—that they discouraged eligible men from seeking appointment to town councils—falls as we examine the municipal revival o f Central America. Intendants’ interest and care in reviving city councils was discussed above. see AHN Consejos 20983.. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Although extinguished for arbitrary reasons in 1799. however.57 Finally. industry. and had also contributed to the founding of the territory’s first newspaper. The same officials took equal. as testimony to the growing class of letrados graduating from a flourishing University. Pieza 10. but the center was clearly Guatemala City. 57 John Carter Brown Library (JCBL.

and a corresponding rise in their cost would ensue. however. . the cost of a council seat was kept quite low. see JCBL. which later were filled in a group sale o f eleven positions by the same individuals. There was no apparent problem in finding eligible men to serve in the positions. Francisco Guevara y Dongo (regidor & alferez real. Manuel Carrera (regidor & depositario general. and Jose Antonio Cicilia y Montoya (regidor sencillo. a report on the prices offered for regimientos in Central America’s 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. if the privilege o f membership were acknowledged. sold four regimientos in 1794. Four regim ientos sold in 1775 to Manuel Diez Clemente (regidor & alcalde Provincial Sta Hermandad. Lista de lo s individuos d e l ilustre colegio de abogados d e este reyno d e G uatem ala. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Guatemala City. 70-228. competition for seats in the council. 191 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. At the close o f the eighteenth century. with seats in important trading and agricultural centers costing significantly more than seats in smaller. Instead. 9 June 1780. at least 16 served on the Guatemala City town council. The cost o f a double regimiento in the 16th and 17th centuries could rise as high as several thousand pesos.59 Sonsonate. and perhaps less stable population o f merchants and landowners. more remote or poorer towns. 250 pesos). and successfully elected ten aldermen (five each year) for a decade (1784-1793). but in previous years had elected four biennial aldermen. 200 pesos). a port town with a smaller. Nor was Guatemala City the only municipality to use this strategy to fill vacant posts. established 2-year aldermen’s positions (regidores biennales).60 This is not to say that local rhetoric bemoaning the loss of prestige o f municipal service in any way diminished. O f the 39 men listed. and primarily to their brothers and sons. 250 pesos). After all. 59 See Chapter 2. Titles. and 300 pesos for every 58 For a list o f colegio members of 1813. after the transfer o f the capital. 60 AGI Guatemala 446. 100 pesos).

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.


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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 City’s council welcomed several generations o f Aycinenas, the most


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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)


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

on to contribute a more substantial proportion to public works. Yet, the willingness o f Tegucigalpa’s 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 Napoleon’s 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 city’s 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 City’s 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:


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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 kingdom’s 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 stake—control o f the apparatus o f policing—recalls once again that Spain’s reforms in the Americas derived from experience at home. The refining and then overhaul o f the city’s 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.


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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 general’s approval but stirred up the Guatemala City town council. As with the president’s 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.


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

objected not to the ends o f the project, but to the means used to achieve them. Guatemala City’s 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 city’s 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 City’s 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 city’s 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 capital’s 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


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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 city’s ju e z de policia. Robledo’s goal was improvement o f policing o f the city’s multiracial communities by increasing the number o f leading vecinos who organized and coordinated the policia o f the city’s 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.


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

city (Art. 5). Five alcaldes de quartel would be the oidores o f the audiencia; the city’s 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 Crown’s 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. Robledo’s 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 council’s 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.


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

city life, taking on tasks of “good government” that had traditionally been municipal and even church responsibilities. First among the new official’s functions was to keep track o f his district’s 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 city’s 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 anyone—regardless of rank or fuero —either on a judge’s 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


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

actions, the alcalde de barrio did require clearance from the alcalde de quartel to intervene in delicate cases. Asuncion’s 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 city’s juez de policia and ju e z de aguas, elected annually from among the regidores, and a threat to the town council’s traditional status and responsibilities. To measure the level o f the city council’s 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 city’s 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 Troncoso’s initiative or received his request for approval o f Robledo’s plan, and only six months after the city first received a copy o f Robledo’s 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 city’s 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 Asuncion’s prestige and increased audiencia control of city administration. The city’s four-part proposal sought to reinforce the city’s primacy by first reducing the number o f alcaldes de barrio from 21 to 14.


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

there was absolute resistance to having individuals who were not permanent members of colonial society. they should neither take their oath nor receive a seat in the cabildo.70 More government and more social control would be welcome. 124. 2 May 1792. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. giving the oath should be a function o f the alcaldes de quartel. 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. the city argued that the swearing in ceremony should not take place in the city hall (Art.69 Third. 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 city’s householders. a responsibility o f daily upkeep. Carta del Capitan General B. on the grounds that since the new officers would not be ministros de republica. the responsibilities as described were similar: registration of 203 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Campomanes. Instead. 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. First.Second. The Council of the Indies marked this letter ‘received’ on 16 August 1792. p. 69 Castro. implied the city’s proposal. in this case the 68 AGI Guatemala 579. The city’s proposal provides insight into elite Creole patrol o f the borders o f membership in Guatemala City society. to make clear the division between city government and the new alcaldes de barrio . . 2). This was the procedure followed in Madrid. As a final point. Troncoso a SM. not just Spaniards o f distinction. while the juez de policia and ju e z de aguas addressed the broader issues o f planning and problem solving. as in the case o f Mexico City. Annually elected by the vecinos o f the barrio in which each o f 64 alcaldes de barrio lived and patrolled.

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. sending beggars to a hospice or the army. by creating positions o f authority for members o f the city’s other castes. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.72 Already the number o f men eligible had been reduced with the creation o f the Consulado de Comercio (1793). In 1789. If 21 men of pure Spanish origin served each year. Book 3. 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 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.M. Francisco Gomez de Cos a S. .M. 11 January 1792. ff 4-5. For specific duties. 11 January 1792. 70 AGI Guatemala 579. arrest o f delinquents. could perhaps dispel growing tensions among capable men who were disenfranchised due to their racial heritage. making decisions about the criteria and individuals who would be selected as “honored” and apt for the highest form o f local political service. Laws 9 and 10. Lista 3. without increasing competition for their own positions. O f householders o f the first rank. Title 21. Pieza 10. Guatemala City’s proposal explicitly hoped to foster a system of advancement through merits that.71 In this instance. then sixty-three people at any one time would be ineligible to serve on the permanent and elective seats o f the council. see the Novisima Recopilacion. AGI Guatemala 579. and were allowed the two year respite from council service granted in Article 6.. patrols. 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. a seat on the town council. Francisco Gomez de Cos a S. whose consul and priors were drawn inhabitants.. presumably. as the city pointed out. There was some practical justification for the first two proposals. etc.judges o f the audience. resources and influence. 72 AHN Consejos 20983. Second.

i de quarteles en la ciudad de Guatemala. Testimonio de los Autos sobre creacion de alcaldes de barrio. or less than the 2 year hiatus had passed since recent service (ff 96v-99v). the testimony exposed their hypocrisy with evidence that militiamen served regularly in the ayuntamiento. 74 AGI Guatemala 579. 94-95v). To prevent implementation o f the ordenanzas until the Crown considered its counterproposals. i de quarteles en la ciudad de Guatemala. he suspended execution o f the project until a royal decision could be made and in May dispatched a 100-page testimony to Spain. On 4 February 1792. the town council mobilized the 54 officers o f the city’s militia to refuse to serve. 75 AGI Guatemala 579.75 The royal order o f 23 April 1793 that decided the dispute achieved something o f a compromise. upheld the officers’ position.from the same elite population and were ineligible for simultaneous service on the aynmtamiento. or privileges. ff. It reduced the number o f quarteles to 6 from 7 (because o f the abolition 73 AGI Guatemala 579. Troncoso a SM. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The testimonio includes a list of the 40 officers o f the Regiment o f Provincial Dragoons o f Guatemala (ff.74 In addition to denouncing the city’s tactics. 99v-100. oidor Joaquin Basa. o f whom the first 20 were ineligible'for immediate service because they were either currently on the council. . An appeal to the Council of the Indies was not the city’s only tool to prevent establishment of the new police force until its amendments could be included. which resulted in the militia's opposition. 205 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.73 When the army’s judge advocate. Troncoso observed that the city held a junta in the house o f Col. Carta del Capitan General B. 2 May 1792. on the grounds that service as alcaldes de barrio was incompatible with their militaryfuero. Testimonio de los Autos sobre creacion de alcaldes de barrio. and the city’s list o f the 49 men it considered “apt” for service in oficios concejiles. the 14 officers from the Batallon o f Infantry o f Sacatepeques living in the capital (ff. an exasperated Troncoso had no recourse. Troncoso also included articles from the ordenanzas de milicias refuting the claim that military duties were incompatible with municipal service. 4 February 1792. 96-96v). Miguel Eguizabal. Decreto de presidente Troncoso.

” Finally. . However. 1794. could already be felt in terms 6 AGI Guatemala 579. for a total o f 12 rather than 21. and claimed victory in a letter o f January. 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.”76 Troncoso put the new system into effect in October 1793. 12 February 1794. This report contains a summary o f the articles 206 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. such as the cleanliness o f fountains and the pavement of city streets. In other words. the royal order acknowledged various realities o f Guatemalan society. On matters in which they city had previous authority. rather than in the sessions changer o f the cabildo. Selection o f the alcaldes de barrio remained the prerogative o f the alcaldes de quartel. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This dozen would take the oath o f office before the alcalde de quartel. Fiscal’s Report. including militiamen except when specifically occupied “on military duty. 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. The Council also agreed that it was “quite normal” for there to be a distinction between the two types o f alcalde . the king ruled that no secular Spaniard was exempt from service. he wrote. the order declared that the faculties o f the regidores in charge o f these areas was to be understood as uncompromised. The positive results.o f one seat in the audiencia) and the number o f alcaldes from 3 to 2 per barrio. because at least two were subordinate to the alcaldes de quartel who were also alcaldes ordinarios. not the city’s vecinos. 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.

as the town council would in future elect three rather than fourteen members each year. Expedientes 16221 and 16224. The Crown was interested in better government. Leg 2246. 77 AGI Guatemala 579. . February 1794. for it accompanied a new complaint from the city. From the exultant Troncoso’s perspective. Guatemala. . 4 January 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. RC.4. 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. most o f whom had already served on the council. had been auctioned to a group o f distinguished men. Troncoso a SM. 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 city’s status.SAGCA Al. CapL Gral. Asuncion’s attempt to reopen the issue did move the king to send a new royal order in 1794. By their purchase. however.77 Troncoso’s letter o f triumph was perhaps a trifle premature. the sale benefitted the royal treasury and. The captain general could also report that the eleven regimientos o f the capital.2 Leg. which had been unsellable and filled by biannual election since 1782. the king and his council had rewarded the reformist governors o f Guatemala a rather Pyrrhic victory. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The original cedula can be found at AGCA A 1.o f a drastic reduction o f drunkenness and in the number o f wounded admitted to the city hospitals.2. 16221. 2246 Exp. increased the number o f men from whom he could select the alcaldes de barrio. 207 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. and o f the 1793 royal cedula. but did not wish the new alcaldes de barrio to truly become a parallel government. paradoxically.78 Despite the official rebuff.

leaving these to Spaniards. 9 May 1798. ff.” four other alcaldes de barrio who wished to be elected to the Guatemala City town council but found themselves repeatedly shunned. . A 1. See also AGCA A 1. con distincion de los Espafioles Europeos y Americanos. Jose Victoriano Retes and “ consortes. 80 The four other alcaldes de barrio are Lorenzo Menendez. recognized '9 AGI Guatemala 636.79 By 1798.81 The town council quickly showed that in terms o f municipal service. like they. This document is also in AGCA. Retes showed that 44 o f the 60 alcaldes de barrio who had actually served between 1793 and 1798 had been Spaniards.2 Leg.82 Among the arguments the city marshaled to discount Retes’ denunciation was that even he. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Pieza 7. 7-v. 208 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. with the two groups alternating as mayors and syndics in a semi-official rotation called the altemativa . denounced the policy o f capitulares and their relatives who refused the lesser posts o f alcaldes de barrio. 1082. 1794. AHN. 43 Exp 1082. the alcaldes de barrio. amicable divisions between Creoles and Spaniards o f the tasks and positions in the council had been apportioned evenly since 1700. Juan Antonio Araujo. a disgruntled Spanish alcalde de barrio had prepared a complaint of his own against the ayuntamiento. 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. the Council o f the Indies supported the city government over the governor and his allies. picked by the city as 1803 syndic. Certificacion de los alcaldes de barrio que ha avido desde la ereccion asta la presente. Francisco Eceta and Mauro de Castro. When the cabildo opposed the captain general’s plan to open a theater in Asuncion. 80 As well as impressive evidence of the interrelatedness o f the capitulares. Consejos 20983. Another sympathetic to their cause is Sebastian Melon. Pieza 2. 43. 81 AHN Consejos 20983. 1794 again sided with the town council rather than the new officials on a question regarding the local theater to make the point.2 Leg.

Exp. Exp. 5344. AGCA A1. like many other Spaniards resident in Guatemala. The resignations continued with Lorenzo Moreno (1799). and Pedro Aycinena resigned. 5344. Luis Vega and Pedro Jose Valenzuela (father)(1800). 3099. Exp. 29 August 1803.83 They did not explain why such eminently-qualified souls could not also take on the task o f policing the city. Leg. However. Exp. were only there temporarily and did not meet two o f the more important qualities o f a vecino. Many more men who had served or who would serve on the council steadfastly refused to serve. 5544. Exp. Ambrosio Taboada. 273v-294 83 AHN Consejos 20983. as did Jose Maria Pihol in 1796. 209 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. ff. Leg. and that not all were apt to serve it. In the end. 1028. Mariano Najera refused a nomination. 1057. Exp. Miguel Ignacio Alvarez de Asturias. 7v. 42. Pieza 11. Leg. 155 Exp. 44. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.that the post of alcalde ordinario demanded greater representation and authority. . Leg. President Domas y Valle wrote to oidor Jacobo Villaurrutia to congratulate him on the colaboration ofJuan Jose Bamida and Antonio Tejada. In 1791. 45389. no further effort was expended to build up the attraction of the alcalde de barrio. Leg. 1098. Pieza 2. 82 A list of the mayors and syndics and their geographical origins between 1700-1802 can be found in AHN Consejos 20983. AGCA A 1.50.84 Furthermore. Ayuntamiento de Guatemala a SM. In 1793. Benito Cividanes and Manuel de Jesus Vasquez (1802) and finally Felix Antonio Poggio (1806). 45055. a cedula o f 1805 ordered the city to observe traditional laws which would increase the availability o f posts. Leg. the city fathers pointed out that Retes. but the extensive list of resignations by the city’s capitulares o f nominations to serve as alcaldes de barrio makes explicit the implication that such service was not honorable enough for them. 45057. 1064. The council’s prestige remained unimpaired while the city’s policia had nonetheless been augmented considerably. 84 In 1796. f. Mariano Arrivillaga simply did not do his job. most particularly by forbidding regidores to serve as alcaldes and enforcing the two year hiatus in between stints as alcalde. 1063. 43.50 Leg. a permanent household and a bride. 45054. the city had turned defeat into victory. In practice. 1072. 1038.

219. 85. 86 AGCA A1. Libro de Cabildo. Expediente 15737. Leg. naming their own alcaldes auxiliares much as the alcaldes de quartel had previously selected their lieutenants. under a weakening Ferdinand VII. Libro de Cabildo. the city council o f Asuncion achieved its goal o f taking the increased responsibility for keeping order in the capital under its mantle. Asuncion proposed a new plan authored by Father Dr Mariano Garcia (1762-1824). 1820. f.2 Legajo 2189. In 1811.50. So it was not until 1820 that the regidores o f Asuncion became its alcaldes de barrio. 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. the priest o f Remedios parish. after consulting the priests o f the city’s four parishes. 1125. . delayed implementation. 14 April. What is important to know here is that this final innovation. With the audiencia down to two ministers. 210 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.86 Restored to constitutional government. which expanded considerably the council’s ability to exercise real 85 AGCA A 1. 44. Exp. which the twelve regidores o f the city would patrol and supervise as alcaldes de barrio.It was another fifteen years before the city achieved final victory. Session 29. Session o f 17 June. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29. the time could not have been better to propose a change. who more than shared the city’s disgust with the audiencia o f the period. This plan redistricted the city into twelve barrios. Leg. 157. city and supremo gobiem o agreed in 1810 on the impossibility o f filling all the posts of alcalde de barrio with Espaftoles. During the supportive term o f Captain General Antonio Gonzalez Saravia. this time to the less accomodating Jose Bustamante (1811-1817). f.85 Yet another change o f presidents . 1811. Exp. with the help o f auxiliares.

based on the alcaldes de barrio o f Madrid and Mexico became yet another example of localized adjustment. nonetheless the benefits o f an extended body of ranking vecinos involved in policing the cities appealed to governors and cities outside the capital. After twenty years of direct and indirect resistance. and met in terms o f traditional concerns over prestige and privilege. . the city council triumphed. the city council. if the Bourbon attempt to increase order and control in fact did succeed in the long run. Furthermore. at least until 1850. took deep root and received no modification after independence. The members o f Asuncion’s regimiento and justicia continued to assign in the first meeting o f each year the alcaldes de barrio o f the city. and the city had recuperated the powers lost with the initial reform.authority over its populations. They further took over in 1821 the approval o f the selection o f the auxiliares who would serve under each one. when implementation could only be affected after local concerns about prestige had been at least partially met. The audiencia's initial attempt to combine administrative reform with an expansion of the elite power base was long forgotten. the uniformity suggested by Robledo’s initial project. under federation or Guatemalan government. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. up to 16 in number by 1821. If not universally copied in Central America. and through its auxiliares incorporated appropriate castas into the police system. in civil war. The reform conceived by a well-meaning audiencia to increase order and incorporate additional members o f the city’s 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. In 1802. the alcalde mayor o f Quezaltenango suggested 211 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.

AMS. Leg 2122. S o b re que el Ale. The Guatemalan government did confirm.establishing the institution in this Indian village. Apparently establishmnet o f such positions was not nationally enforced. 20 August 1817. Seccion Antigua. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. AGCA B119. In terms of political change. for example.4 Leg 2540.88 There were alcaldes de barrio in San Salvador by 181489. (B119. Caja 3. however. f 13. San Salvador). because it was not until 1836 that the town o f Escuintla established its own alcaldes auxiliares (B119. some intendancies. 29 March 1831. . Exp 57029). de 4 leguas. this reform succeeded in professionalizing and rendering more transparent the collection of Crown revenues. 18131818. Leg 2558. and in 1817. 212 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. the results were less clear. 26 August 1836). 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. Caja 1810-21/3. Exp 58611.50. Leg 197. siem pre hart exercido los A lcaldes Ordirt. which renamed provinces already under the administration o f one Spanish governor. found little to oppose in the new system. In terms o f fiscal policy. M r. like that of San Salvador.2. 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.. 88 See. #s7 90 Alcaldes Ordinarios. Antigua Guatemala and after independence the institution of alcaldes auxiliares chosen by the city councils was formally adopted into the state government.A. however.4. f 3. 89 Archivo General de la Nacion (AGN. 87 AGCA A 1. in which the government o f Guatemala determined that the municipality o f San Miguel Petapa.s d e este N. Corresp Oflcial.87 By 1805 alcaldes de barrio were being elected in the old capital. a measure they claimed was o f most urgent necessity to control the mostly Indian and ladino residents.. Exp 60140. On the one hand. Sonsonate. Exp 3988.90 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 Spain’s peninsular and overseas kingdoms. to Captain General (MYS). Intento qua rtar la Jurisdiccion q. not hacienda owners of Rosario and Fraijanes would name the alcaldes auxiliares o f Santa Ines Petapa.

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. Nicaragua and Honduras. Pretensions by newly important capitals. The balance sheet of a century o f Bourbon management o f the apparatus of government was. . Even if the audiencia was determined to reject such impositions. Despite opportunities provided in the ranks o f the tax collectors. like those o f Chiapas. By 1786. 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. served as proving ground for increasing localization of politics. then. 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. 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. with the landowners and merchants of the former competing with the miners of the latter to extract the largest profit from the province. in Central America one o f increasing interest in local government and insistence on regional autonomy. to establish taxes on residents o f the entire province. The tensions between Comayagua and Tegucigalpa provide one vivid example o f the error o f such forced political marriages. were not well received. 213 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. governors and militias o f this economically declining backwater of the Spanish Empire. the effect was to increase hostility to provincial capitals. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. like Comayagua.Consolidated intendancies. however. it was too late to impose such unity on other areas.

from the 1750s onwards.The Intendancies as a reform. When interests between municipal elites and 214 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. or. Some. . failed. Even small towns with a Spanish population received authorization. both municipal and royal. the result o f the implementation o f the Bourbon reforms. as I believe. 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. an order to establish their own alcaldes and justice. the goal was to increase the number of local governments to break the influence o f central authorities. mestizos and mulattos were alternately bribed or coerced to take up city living. The Bourbons did not quite dare to dispense with the authority o f the captain general (or viceroy) and through other institutions. like Danli in Honduras quickly demonstrated that the tool was welcome and challenged the former municipal center to cede it substantial territory. if their intent had been to reduce the role o f city government in the government o f Central America. retained familiar outlines as Spaniards and Americans faced the challenges of the nineteenth century remained in the same relationship as in prior centuries. If. however. then the failure was less in evidence. The relationship between city and state. 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. as well. more accurately. Nonetheless. 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. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Indians.

Who would control it. Yet the litigious and uncertain years o f Bourbon reforms implemented and withdrawn had taken their toll. delays and other tactics delayed or impeded action. the city was a key institution whose importance grew and revived parallel to and urged on by a revived interest in government. Both for Bourbon kings drafting legislation in Spain and Creole and Spanish elites adjusting their political lives to accommodate or resist. When interests collided. what responsibilities it would take on willingly or unwillingly. regional and imperial government. other population pressures o f economically advancing Spaniards o f questionable ancestry could divide over the timing and level o f the advance. traditions and customs whose dividend was loyalty and continued interest in service to the Crown and participation in local.Crown-appointed governors coincided. as in the Yraeta case in San Vicente. . Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In other areas. is it any wonder that in Spain and in the 215 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. at least. In Asuncion. there was little conflict. 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 all of this is that the jousting ground was the city council. 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. The important point to remember. As the Spanish empire shivered in the wake o f Napoleon’s invasion o f Spain in 1808. a series o f appeals. and who would fund it. As in the cases o f establishing alcaldes de barrio in Asuncion or changing the Ordenanzas de Intendentes rules on mayoral elections.

“Spanish D om inions in N orth A m erica. . 1811). 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. 216 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Library o f Congress. C ourtesy o f G eography a n d M ap D ivision. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. H ebert. Kingdom o f Guatemala. Southern P a rt. Pinkerton.Americas.” in Modem G eography (London: J. 1811 Source: L.

reformers—this time drawn from both sides o f the Atlantic—resolved to strengthen both provincial and municipal authority. independence agitator Manuel Jose Arce climbed onto a stool at the comer o f the city hall o f San Salvador to cry. conspiracies surfaced in the capital. as well as in Tegucigalpa and Granada (Nicaragua) and demanded everything from greater political autonomy or participation within a Spanish framework. 1996). Monterey. including Guatemala. Central America experienced several rebellions. each centered around and involving a particular city. From 1811 to 1814. ed. But more was going on than local uprisings. 1809-1821 On the morning o f November 5. San Salvador. 217 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. The Constitution of Cadiz (1812) authorized adult Spanish and Indian males resident in any 1This cry is reported in Francisco J. “There is no king. nor Intendant. Spain’s new parliament was remaking the empire into a constitutional monarchy. nor Captain General: we ought only to obey our Mayors. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Yet.. And once again. to independence from both Spain and Guatemala.”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. 1811. Over the course o f these four years.Chapter 5 “We ought only to obey our Mayors”: City and State under a Constitutional Monarchy. were engaged in a military and political battle to restore the empire’s sovereignty. Historia de El Salvador. Anotaciones Cronologicas. 1810-1842 Volume 1 (San Salvador: Universidad de El Salvador. the political opening provided by an endangered empire also encouraged those with regional axes to grind to make their cases public. 15. p. . At the same time.

this failure once again favored the continuance o f political action through the city. 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. As leaders in peninsular Spain struggled to establish a 218 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. which was endowed with the same extensive powers and responsibilities previously reserved for Spanish cities. but also to their own town council. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Combined with programs to extend municipal government to remote districts. . 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. These same men would also elect deputies to “provincial deputations. as Mario Rodriguez explored in his book. one o f the few areas not then under French control. Central Americans participated actively both in the drafting of and implementation o f the Spanish with 1000 residents or more to elect not just deputies to far-away parliaments. The Cadiz Experiment in Central America. and equally long before the famous Cortes convened in 1810 in the Spanish port city o f Cadiz. The political changes unleashed in Spain in 1808 began to impact the Kingdom o f Guatemala well before Manuel Jose Arce’s declaration.” advisory bodies with members from each district o f a province or intendancy who were to provide advice and council to royallyappointed governors.

The report was prepared by audiencia judge Alejandro Ramirez. It also underlined how leaders in Spain presumed that with the sovereignty o f the king in question. for the first time. The first authority. depending both upon selection and chance. for a discussion o f the same process in argentian. the sovereignty o f the Spanish people would return to the body politic o f the empire—its pueblos.” 219 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. “the p u eb lo s resumed the sovereign power. Guatemala City. established in 1808.” and a regulation was required to determine the manner in which to hear the cities as a “political body. for the overseas territories o f Spain—rebaptized not “the Indies” but “Ultramar. 1997).” or overseas colonies to indicate their relation to the madre patria —to participate in the new government. Eslados: O rigenes de la Nacion Argentina ([Buenos Aires]: Editora Espasa Calpe. The individual selected would serve as the entire kingdom’s representative to the Junta Central. 121. A small boy would then draw one name from an urn. and involving a hierarchy o f cities.recognized interim government. 4 See Jose Carlos Chiaramonte. p.4 2 Mario Rodriguez. the regulations for elections for the Kingdom’s deputy called for each incorporated city council to propose three names. the Suprema Junta Central. Since the only extant body representing local interests was the ayuntamiento. where the three men with the most votes would be submitted to an identical random selection. an Argentine Junta Conservadora explained in October 1811 that because o f the political orphanage o f Spain due to Ferdinand VII’s captivity. In this case. 1808-1826 (Berkeley: U. Ciudades P rovincias. they called. would color future elections procedures throughout the interregnum as well as into independence. . 3 See AGI Guatemala 847 for the report on the election of the Kingdom o f Guatemala’s representative to the Junta Central. to elect a representative to sit on the council alongside representatives from the Spanish kingdoms. The C adiz Experim ent in C entral Am erica. California Press. invited the Kingdom o f Guatemala as well as the rest o f the American territories. or municipalities. and that name would be sent on to the kingdom capital. 3 This precedent. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1978).

As a result. and only one of the three men took his seat. a young Mexican named Francisco Camacho.” Gonzalez Saravia characterized the election o f a deputy as “the most 220 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Miguel Ignacio Zepeda and Eusebio Arrivillaga sought to purchase the seats. 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. and o f both classes of Spanish vecinos. Camacho was hustled out o f town and expelled from Guatemala by the captain general. In the words o f the fiscal o f the audience. who insisted the sale should go through. and the audience rallied to support their regent. 21 June 1809. 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 council’s protests—only the king could deny the sale o f an office— the imbroglio became a political scandal as the captain general sided with the council. Benito Ramon de Hermida. See also AGCA A1 Leg 2244. the Captain General called for the remaining council members to hold an election for the 10 vacant aldermen’s seats {regimientos). Guatemala. as per custom and following the royal dispositions o f 17 December 1787.5 The divisive scuffle showing the lack o f unity among the leading Guatemalan families was not the only result o f the affair. On April 29. Exp 16176. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 AGI Guatemala 624.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. In the end. Five o f seven men who held permanent seats on the council resigned. Letter of fiscal Yafiez to Secretario de Estado. the council opposed the sale. . europeans and americans. both in terms o f circulating seats among the municipal elite and integrating Spanish immigrant and Creole resident into city politics (see Chapter 3). Gracia y Justicia. Captain General Gonzalez Saravia issued a provision ordering the eelections o f men of “good qualities .

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. When the delegate did not leave for Spain because the Junta was dissolved. Antonio Juarros. Sebastian Melon and Juan Antonio Aqueche.7 serious and important act ever offered or that could be offered to these illustrious bodies (cuerpos ). As in the earlier elections. Jose Ysasi. pp. 1810-1840. “Procesos Electoralesy Close Politico en la Federacion de Centroamerica. On May 2. and Manuel Jose Pavon. 7 Xiomara Avendano Rojas. 1801-1832. 2nd Marques o f Aycinena. Five o f the ten new regidores were Spaniards and five Creoles. Miguel Ygnacio de Asturias. 22 May 1809. not just for local administration. Mayor Gregorio Urruela (Spanish) and regidores Jose Maria Peinado and Antonio Isidro Palomo (Creoles) selected the following ten men to serve—Creoles Vicente Aycinena y Carrillo. and Miguel Ignacio Alvarez de Asturias and Spaniards Jose Antonio Castanedo and Miguel Jacinto Marticorena resigned their seats. Pedro Jose Arrivillaga (Creole) was not present.. Luis Francisco Banutia. Creoles Antonio Juarros. 1994.” 6 AGCA A1 Leg 2244. Tegucigalpa elected lawyer Jose Cecilio del Valle.e. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Nor did these cities believe their responsibility stopped with an election. Libro de Actas Municipales. the city councils.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). and Spaniards Miguel Jacinto Marticorena. and Archivo Municipal de Tegucigalpa (AMT). five o f the most important councils joined to petition for his acceptance into the Consejo Supremo that replaced it. In short order. Exp 16176." PhD thesis. new elections were held by the remaining members o f the town council for the ten of 12 regimiento vacancies. Miguel Gonzalez. fourteen cities around the kingdom o f Guatemala also organized to participate in the selection o f Guatemala’s representative to the Suprema Junta Central. Manuel Jose de Lara. i. 39-42. . 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. The city’s second mayor. but as an important political player in the Spanish monarchy. who resided in Guatemala City and drafted the 1821 declaration o f independence o f the 221 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Manuel Jose Pavon y Mufioz. Colegio de Mexico.

it would be approached through the body recognized as the representative of the people: the republic. however. cabildante Francisco San Martin and lawyer Mnuel Lorenzo Rosa.In this initial political upheaval. Second. Whatever form change would take. and they moved rapidly to participate. and with Spanish officials to respond to change. It also showed that such political experimentation that they believed was appropriate. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. was centered on the city council. Granada and Guatemala had chosen Alejandro Ramirez. three important precedents had been set that would color the political developments o f the next decade and beyond. was Manuel Jose Pavon y Munoz. a Spaniard and founder and member of the Real Sociedad Economica. Comayagua. a lawyer and landowner of the capitaline elite who 222 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. a Spanish town within the alcaldia mayor o f Tegucigalpa. In the case o f Guatemala City. The man elected in the lottery. in concert. the town council. even before official notification o f the assignment o f new responsibilities o f the kingdom’s ayuntamientos could cross the Atlantic. The other two candidates were Tegucigalpa natives. Kingdom o f Guatemala. Thus. 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. Spain had accepted the principle o f including American representation in national government. working alone. residents assumed—correctly as it turned out—that 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. Sonsonate. . First. Third. the move to ensure the fullest possible participation— the filling o f empty positions—further 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. Valle was a native of Choluteca. city councils would take the lead in responding to political developments.

The Spanish authorites chastised the juez de imprenta for seeking to stop the ayuntamiento from circulating one o f its decrees. and some of it taking advantage o f the political confusion to advance local agendas through agitation and even uprising. when political practices began to change but there was not yet a new political system to replace the one shattered by Napoleon’s invasion. to all the cities and villas o f its district. In the period between 1809 and 1812.9 Such support both reaffirmed the legitimacy had long served in the Guatemala City town council. clerics and military officers to represent the community’s acquiescence. authorities in Spain paid close attention to political developments in the Americas. Consulta. Granada and Leon sought to have Pavon y Munoz accepted as a member o f the Consejo Supremo.” pp. determined to champion the city council. 8 In some cases. Guatemala.The atmosphere o f possibility unleashed by the new forms o f government in Spain led to unprecedented levels of municipal activity. only to be prevented by a censor (juez de imprenta) concerned that his own authority was being undermined.8 Thus when the enthusiastic city council o f Guatemala volunteered to print and distribute. for example. the shift from a Junta Central to a Consejo Supremo. one o f the Junta Suprema's decrees. the decision to swear an oath was hotly debated. in 1810. 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. In 1811. . See Avendano. 41-42. In Guatemala City. Sonsonate. When ceremonies celebrated the swearing o f loyalty to each new type of political authority. “Procesos Electorales y Clase Politica. unleashed a fierce discussion in the cabildo on the legitimacy of the new authority. which initially had no American representatives. the Regency. 20 June 1810. 223 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. AGI Guatemala 625. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. stating that no one was prevented from cummunicating its enlightened and patriotic thoughts to benefit the public (causa publica). Comayagua. the cabildos took center stage along with royal officials. some o f it directed at supporting the Spanish war effort and demonstrating loyalty to the Spanish empire.

and an independence-planning conspiracy was forestalled in Guatemala City after the captain general’s agent infiltrated the plotters’ group. a regidor. 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. In November 1811. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and the city council that mediates. mayor. supported by the alcaldes de barrio. the Kingdom o f Guatemala. The town council was either the instigator or the object in each o f these revolts. selected by the traditional one but then approved by the Spanish vecinos and honorable mulatos o f the city. Nicaragua. a Guatemala City Creole working as royal treasurer. stoned the houses o f Spaniards. for a detailed accounting o f the revolt. Between 1811 and 1814. 1519. and a new military commander. See also Monterey.10 In 10 COI Resumen. 224 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. upset at the arrest of their priest. including San Salvador's convocation o f the rest of the town councils of the province and to that o f Leon. a new council. prominent clerics and cabildantes agitated for political and ecclesiastical autonomy from kingdom capital Guatemala. Each case reflected local grievances. and in part by the arrest o f their associate and relative.o f the council as a political body. the priest Manuel Aguilar. uprisings occurred in several principal city centers. 1817?. Jose Mariano Batres. but never developed significantly enough to threaten the integrity of. with responsibilities far beyond those o f local administration. named a new intendant. city politics proved an ideal center for the series o f revolts that gently rocked. naming Bernardo de Arce. set off in part by poor relations with their intendant. pp. and signaled that acts o f loyalty would be supported in the metropolis. . demanding the return o f “natural and civil rights usurped 300 years ago. In addition to serving as the core o f local politics that accepted and adapted to change. attributed to Manuel Jose Arce. Historia de El Salvador. in part by poor relations with resident Spaniards. Then. the council.” In this text. that rises up. the San Salvadoran Jose Aguilar. it is the pueblo. In San Salvador.

sent with troops to repress the revolt. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. cabildantes summoned open town meetings (cabildos abiertos) and called for the replacement o f all Spanish officials. and put to the vecinos E spanoles y m ulatos honrados to approve. pp. the uprisings in San Salvador. Sargent Major Pedro Gutierrez. inlcuding his nephew-in-law Jose Serra. Captain General Bustamante. Siglo X V III. 1998). 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). (Tegucigalpa: Ediciones Guaymuras. an entirely new town council was elected. Bustamante 18 September 1814. Masaya and Rivas. or the right to determine and convoking the “alcaldes principales” to settle things. 296-304 treats the 1812 uprising o f Tegucigalpa.12 As Captain General Jose de Bustamante reported in 1820. 13 They also shared the assumption that in times o f political change. determined that the locally suppressed revolt had been resolved.Granada and its neighboring villas. Leon and Granada shared the same characteristics o f deposing their intendants. not to turn over the council to the 1812 mayors to prevent uprisings. In Tegucigalpa. per Resumen o f the Council o f Indies. adviced by Tegucigalpa native Jose Cecilio del Valle. so that the hint o f repression accompanied the political gift o f autonomy. and MA thesis. Ilusion m in e r a y p o d e r p o litico : la alcaldia m a yo r d e Tegucigalpa. and to ensure future tranquility named the priest Marquez temporary a lca ld e m ayor. remained as the military chief o f the reestablished a lcaldia m ayor. setting up their own gubernatorial councils. sovereignty. Taracena reports that subdelegado d e hacienda Antonio Tranquilino Rosa convinced outgoing mayors. 1 1 Luis Pedro Taracena. 225 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1 2 See Chapters 3 and 4 for a discussion o f revolt during the late eighteenth century. 1 3 AGI Guatemala 502. city councilors overthrew the Spanish intendant (December 1811April 1812). In Leon. During the process. 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. and seeking the abolition o f the import tax monopoly (estanco de aduanas). and were appeased after priests Juan Franco Pineda and Juan Afrancisco Marquez negotiated the installation o f the elected council. The m ulatos and Indians o f the annexed town o f Comayaguela both demanded the switch.1 1 Although making political claims relevant to the 1810s. .

an Argentine Junta Conservadora explained in October 1811 that because o f the political orphanage of Spain due to Ferdinand VTI’s captivity. 1997). p. In this case. for a discussion o f the same process in argentian. Each city appealed to its smaller neighbors within its province to unite with 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. the military squadrons 1 4 See Jose Carlos Chiaramonte. one city like San Salvador might appeal to another city. Ciudades Provincias. In the San Salvador case. but without reaching out to all the districts of the Kingdom of Guatemala. “the pueblos resumed the sovereign power.political future.” 226 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Within two weeks. the city councils o f San Vicente and Santa Ana signed statements protesting the movements against Spanish officials in San Salvador.14 However. the maneuvering seemed to demand greater autonomy within the system rather than withdrawal from it. there was no attempt to coordinate these uprisings into a regional movement. . Repression of the affair was also municipal. like Leon. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. but in a time when greatly increased opportunities existed for political representation and advancement within the Spanish political system abounded. At most. but did not perceive o f or represent their movement as national. Estados: Origenes de la Nacion Argentina ([Buenos Aires]: Editora Espasa Calpe.” and a regulation was required to determine the manner in which to hear the cities as a “political body. 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). devolved to the pueblos that had given their sovereignty to the king. San Miguel’s cabildo had the hangman bum the invitation to join the movement in the city plaza. Each movement relied upon the loss o f agreed central authority and a moment o f political opportunity to advance local agendas. 121.

Exp. Santa Ana and San Vicente. the ayuntamiento o f Guatemala City also asked the Spanish government to pardon the rebels o f Granada. Among the signers o f the various declarations were: Metapan: Juan de Dios Mayorga. demonstrated significant interest in taking a hand in peacefully resolving the issues at hand. Leg. . The Cadiz Experiment. Francisco Diaz Castillo. along with former regidor Col.1 5 Guatemala City. Caja 1.16 In 1813. 227 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Jose de Aycinena. Instead. as capital o f the kingdom. Seccion Antigua. at a minimum. could demonstrate that in the Kingdom o f Guatemala. the capital’s ayuntamiento sent its own negotiator. Bartolome Jose Tellez. Santa Ana: Pbro. their influence was not enough to achieve their goal. and even 1 5 Monterey. Peynado took his place and won the local elites over to the point that in 1812 he was elected mayor o f San Salvador. the belief that there was slim chance of a successful revolt) was stronger than dissatisfaction. Much o f Peynado’s correspondence regarding the intricacies o f the political situation in San Salvador can be found in AGN. When Aycinena left to serve in the Council o f State in Spain. Lie. no town rose in support o f provincial capital San Salvador’s second attempt to achieve political independence and a bishopric. Florencio Arbizu. named by Captain General Jose de Bustamante to serve as interim governor o f San Salvador. too. San Vicente: Jose Maria de Hoyo and Manuel Jimenez Basurto. AGCA A l. although in this instance. TTus story is fully detailed in Mario Rodriguez. 2244. Mariano Francisco Gomez. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Pbro. Manuel Jose Escobar. regidor Jose Maria Peynado. 1 6 For Peynado’s explanation o f why he accepted the nomination as mayor. Historia de El Salvador. Jose Mariano Mendez. In 1814. p. ayuntamientos from district capitals San Miguel. to bring the city back into the kingdom’s political fold through negotiation with the erring municipality. 19. 16179. see his letter o f 7 January 1812. San Miguel and Sonsonate were en route to suppress the revolt.o f the towns o f San Vicente. loyalty (or.1 7 Other cities. Padre Cura Manuel Ignacio Carcamo. In 1811.

19 Monterey.19 Furthermore. asking the authorities to reward that city council for its decision in an October 1810 meeting not to support a call to revolution. 23. Diputado por la provincia de Honduras en el Reyno de Guathemala (sic) las Cortes. “ . Historia de El Salvador. “Procesos Electorales y Clase Politica. The intendant. Cadiz. Juan Antonio Tomos agreed with this analysis o f the ayunatmiento's symbolic power. 21-22. 228 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.but once the ayuntamiento had signaled the steps that anticipated those o f the revolution.” p. 16 January 1813. “There were dispositions on the part o f the pueblos [of Guatemala] to shelter the suggestions o f the revolutionaries. while Bustamante sent troops to bring order back to Nicaragua. but the other towns o f the province did not. Historia de El Salvador.. 21 AGI Guatemala 533. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44. . royal officials’ fear o f an important uprising vanished. . when he informed the Regency in August 1813 that. t 0 In Nicaragua. The Overseas Ministry responded by instructing the Captain General to inform the council o f the Regency’s appreciation on 8 February.20 As Comayagua’s deputy to the Spanish Cortes wrote in 1813. 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. without the support o f the provincial capital.the neighboring but politically separate town o f Sonsonate. pp. the anxiety o f the government dissipated. 20 Xiomara Avendano.”21 In other words. with only 24 soldiers in the province. Rivas and Potosi rallied to Leon’s movement. he had managed to keep the peace by maintaining a strong working relationship with 1 7 AGI Guatemala 533. 1 8 Monterey. 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. Jose Francisco Morejon. p.” he wrote.

21-2. Jose Antonio Hernandez. including Sensuntepeque. like that of Tuxtla. pp. as we shall see below. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. including more participation in municipal government. began to clamor for official status.24 In Tegucigalpa. Jorge Guillen de Ubico. 1811. Vecinos de Tuxtla. the Indian mayor Andres Flores. in the town o f Metapan (San Salvador). and replaced Ubico with a new mayor. 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. one from each o f the city’s neighborhoods “ AGI Guatemala 533. 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. The elites were not the only members o f Central American society who believed that uncertain times called for change. and its constitutional successor. By 1811. a “negro” Jose Agustin Alvarado and several others demanded the end o f various taxes and monopolies {alcabala. Excluded sections o f the population began to demand inclusion in city politics. 229 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. in the province o f Chiapas. the organizers also engineered the selection o f five mulattos. stoned the liquor factory and house o f the Spanish mayor. 24 Monterey. a mulatto nicknamed “Toto Longo” led an uprising o f that town’s pleve. aguardiente). 11 August 1813. in January o f 1812. also rose to support San Salvador. for example. Several other Indian towns.Comayagua’s ayuntamiento. Juan Antonio Tomos to regency. and acted as did the elite: through negotiation and revolt. communities o f Spaniards and ladinos without a city government. tabacos.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.23 In November of 1811. Historia de El Savador. . 24 AGI Guatemala 62.

no admitio la Plebe a D. the p le b e despite internal dissensions. Caja 1. Antonio Catalan (los Dolores). regional and imperial political authority: the town council. AGN. it nonetheless coalesced its demands around the one institution that had local.o y siguiente hta.25 Whether la plebe demanded its own representatives or the right to influence the selection o f local authorities. Seccion Antigua. If the Bourbon reformers had proposed to establish a universal and uniform system o f provinces governed by 25 Francisco Gardela. . the three new members of the town council were 230 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 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. Tegucigalpa.{barrios) to serve on the cabildo with vozy voto— voice and vote—like the council’s traditional elite members. 7 de Febrero con motivo qe. Folder 2. both in terms o f military resistance and establishment o f a new basis for government. Ilusion m in e ra y p o d er politico . so too did those in the rest o f the Americas and also Spain. The mulato’s full name was Josef Antonio Davila. venian tropas. 297-298. Josef Antonio Davila (la Merced). Just as the communities o f Central America reacted in a variety o f ways to the political uncertainty of the times." 7 February 1812. It is however likely that the three elected council members who had been denied their seats were in some way involved. pp. Authorities in the metropolis responded by seeking to unify and coordinate a united response to Bonaparte. chose alcaldes m ulatos con v o z y voto en el cabildo : Rafael Estrada (la Plazuela). y pensar qe. Manuel Lagos (la Joya). Josef Rosa de comisionado. and Luis Carias (la Ronda). 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. “Diario de lo ocurrido en Tegucigalpa el 6 de En. After 3 meetings on January 29 and 30. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. According to Luis Pedro Taracena.

with varying scope to appeal specific provisions. a constitutional assembly (Cortes). from the abstract relationship o f king to people to the very concrete organization of city government. cities and kingdoms o f Peninsular Spain. the need to establish a government that would be recognized by the numerous independent juntas set up locally to stave off the French. After Ferdinand VTI’s forced resignation in 1808.intendants. the Cortes had been made up o f representatives o f the estates. or parliament. In a more uncertain age. Napoleon Bonaparte named his brother Joseph the new King of Spain. 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. After it became clear that the Suprema Junta Central (1808-1809) was not adequate to the task a regency convened. and Joaquin Espinoza and 231 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. and determined to call a meeting o f the Spanish Cortes. a new generation o f Spanish politicians succeeded in redefining the Spanish political system. with both constructive and disruptive results. Traditionally. A new set o f legislators and representatives took the Bourbon goal o f uniformity and began to apply it through a new mechanism. most o f the Spanish peninsula rose to fight a king perceived o f as a usurper. as a key challenge. 1808). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Those loyal to the “beloved” Ferdinand VH faced. Although Joseph made alliances with elements o f the Spanish elite and promulgated a fairly liberal constitution (Bayonne. 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. with the French and Haitian Revolutions and insurgency in Mexico and South America to serve as example and warning.

2nd ed. 1953). o f Nebraska Press. L o s A francesados (Madrid: Sociedad de Estudios y Publicaciones.T. such a convocation could only produce revolutionary results. La E sp a n a de F ernando V ll (Madrid: Espasa. in March 1812. see Timothy Anna. . see again Miguel Artola. produced a constitution— Constitution politico de la monarquia espanola—that vested sovereignty “principally” in the nation and enshrined democratic processes in everything from election o f Cortes deputies to elected city and provincial councils. L os D iputados A m ericanos en la s Cortes d e C adiz (Madrid: CSIC 1990). 1999). and Espinoza and Marquez were cousins. For a discussion o f politics throughout the reign o f Ferdinand VII. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. For a discussion of the men who supported Joseph Bonaparte. in an era when the concept o f national rather than monarchical sovereignty was fast taking root. deputies from all parts o f the Spanish empire wrangled and debated. syndic Miguel Eusebio Bustamante. La cuestion nacional am ericana en las C o rtes d e C adiz (Valencia: Centro F. Manuel Chust. 1983). particularly the divisions between Spanish and American deputies.flame separatist sentiments that Spain was in no position to extinguish. 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. and Mario Rodriguez. see Marie Laure Rieu-Millan. For a good English introduction to the period. All three were Creoles. Between 1810 and 1812. 232 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. The Cadiz E xperim ent. 26 For an extensive discussion o f the Cortes o f Cadiz. 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. Spain a n d the L oss o f Am erica (Lincoln: U.26 The Constitution was in effect from 1812 to 1814. 1999). In the absence o f the king and in the context o f a full-fledged civil war. y Valiente UNED. The new Cortes thus included representatives from both the Peninsula and its overseas territories. and despite disagreements over the scope o f change. when Ferdinand VII abrogated it after reclaiming his throne.. see Miguel Artola.

it was through the town council that political agendas o f the interregnum were developed.”p. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Working with regidor and former mayor Antonio Juarros. xi. and also benefited from the insights of Nicaraguan attorney Miguel Larreynaga and cleric Bernardo Pavon. town councils across the Kingdom of Guatemala elected the first group o f Cortes deputies. Peynado composed the instructions in the house of regidor and lawyer Manuel Jose Pavon. the instructions provide a clear example o f the Guatemalan elite’s initial vision o f a constitutional society. Peynado’s Instrucciones envisioned a monarchical system with an active Cortes whose membership derived from Spanish communities from all the territories o f the Spanish empire. Thus.27 As a collaborative effort o f Guatemala’s educated and liberal elite.Central American Constitutional Approaches In 1810. The most well-known set o f instructions from this era are those written by Jose Maria Peynado. Father Antonio Larrazabal. Peynado’s Instrucciones para la constitution fundamental de la Monarquia Espanola y su gobiemo (1811) were in fact a draft constitution. Manuel Jose’s brother. as the primary author o f this city’s instructions to its representative at Cadiz. brujula en el tumultuoso mar de las Cortes de Cadiz. . written even as the deputies in Cadiz were beginning deliberations on their own document. “Larrazabal y Peinado: Las “Instrucciones”. in Jose Maria Peynado. 233 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. The drafters drew from their own experience. a permanent member of the Guatemala City town council. Much like the Spanish constitution eventually adopted in 1812. Instrucciones para la constitution fundamental. Peynado’s instructions were also clearly influenced by the French Declaration 27 Cesar Braiias. as each town prepared instructions and guidelines for its representative.

pointing out article by article the French inspiration for many of Peynado’s articles. would be done through an indirect election in which each ayuntamiento o f a province would send electors to the provincial capital to vote. However. O f the two members named by each council. C iu d a d de G uatem ala a su d iputado el Sr. C andnigo penitenciario d e esta Sta. 29 Jose Maria Peynado. Originally printed in Cadiz at the request of Larrazabal. he continued to conceive o f the council as the representative of the political will of the people in a constitutional monarchy. assuming that the traditional system o f office-holding would not be tampered with.I. The copy commented in Bustamante’s original hand. N.29 When the Cortes had formed a political catechism. who convinced the returned king Ferdinand VII o f their treasonous content. which correlates articles o f Peynado’s text with those of the French Declaration of the Rights o f Man and Constitutions. Peynado suggested that elections o f members o f the national government. Dr. one 28 Captain General Jose de Bustamante in 1814 sent an annotated copy of the Instrucciones to Spain. y L. The C adiz Experim ent in C entral Am erica. In his articles 34-36. Iglesia M etropolitana (Guatemala: Editorial del Ministerio de Educacion Publica.28 However. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mario Rodriguez comments on this battle appear in Chapter 5. 19S3). A ntonio d e Larrazabal.. d e que ha d e tratarse en las proxim as Cortes G enerales de la nacion dadas p o r e l M. the Instrucciones were later collected and burned by Captain General Jose Bustamante y Guerra. . Bustamante made these annotations in a successful attempt to get the Instrucciones banned by the returned sovereign. Peynado did not suggest that the town council become a democratic body in his own work. Ayuntam iento de la M. Peynado’s 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. 234 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. specifically a member of a Supreme Central Junta. the ayuntamiento would share responsibility along with provincial councils (juntas) to ensure that children learned its maxims. 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.30 These provincial councils would be made up o f members elected for five-year terms by the ayuntamientos o f each province. 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 Guatemala’s town council who had been stripped o f their positions in the wake o f Bustamante’s charges. 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).of the Rights o f Man. D.

Captain General Jose de Bustamante convinced the Spanish authorities that the instructions “exalt the ayuntamientos. Instrucciones p a r a la constitucion fu n d a m en ta l. y en caso de algun individuo las reclame ocurrira primero a su Ayuntamiento. Instrucciones p a r a la constitucion fu n d a m en ta l. Article 88.”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. .. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32 Peynado. ”32 An individual opposing a decision o f the junta was required to register a complaint through his or her town council. Resumen.j5 Certainly. o de faita de estos jefes por alguna otra causa. arguing for perpetuation o f the traditional system o f 30 Peynado. it would be this junta that would name a temporary successor because it united “the voice o f all the ayuntamientos..would be a capitular while the other could be another member o f the council or simply a vecino . Resumen. ya preresentacion de este se reveran por la misma junta que en estos casos debera ser plena. “En el casodel fallecimiento del virrey.. tendra la junta que reune en si la voz de todos los ayuntamientos.33 Although provincial councils would exist.” 33 Jose Maria Peynado. particularly in economic and administrative affairs. 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. Article 68-71. y quedara sancionada la resolucion.3I When a governor or captain general died or needed to be replaced. 35 AGI Guatemala 502. Instrucciones p a r a la constitucion fu n d a m en ta l.” 34 AGI Guatemala 502. In strucciones p a r a la constitucion fu n d a m en ta l. 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. Article 74. presidente o gobemador. facultad de nombrarlo interinamente. deputy Larrazabal had been true to his instructions. Article 62.. 31 Peynado. 235 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.

Larrazabal argued that “elected councilmen would be unable to remain in office long enough to gain the experience necessary for efficient service. p. industry. France organized its former quilt o f provinces into departments.37 The term was not picked up by the Cortes. 1810-1822. 1810-1822. Article 81. when the first National Assembly met. These responsibilities included: finance. and commerce. 1968). (Berkeley: University of California Press.. he anticipated a federal system that devolved all political 36 Roger L. war. 38 Peter Sahlins. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In 1789. that the hierarchy o f city. “Mexican Municipal Electoral Reform. CunnifF. 168.” in Nettie Lee Benson. B oundaries: th e m aking o f F ra n ce a n d Spain in the P yrenees. 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). 236 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1989).” while at the same time the other terminology o f the French revolution was applied to provinces. 66. Article 90. education and all concerning the progress. 39 Peynado.purchase o f council seats and closed elections in the face o f arguments by other American deputies for a more representative body. because they represented the ayuntamientos o f each province. M exico a n d th e Spanish Cortes. ed.38 It is interesting to note that Peynado conceived o f the regional juntas as gubernatorial bodies which. . had the authority to act within their jurisdiction in every administrative responsibility.” a term that implied a new uniformity to be applied to all towns in the kingdom. (Austin: University of Texas Press. happiness and tranquility o f the inhabitants (moradores) o f which it was the head {de que es cabeza).36 Peynado’s Instrucciones was also the first document in Central America to refer to cities as “municipalidades. p. promotion o f agriculture.39 If Peynado was not innovative in reshaping the organization o f city life.” 37 Peynado. and it was only in 1825. Instrucciones p a ra la constitucion fu n d a m en ta l. renamed departments. town and “place” was formally replaced with the egalitarian “municipality. the arts. administration (policia ).

237 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.” that is. costly and timeconsuming travel for electors and deputies. It would also entail significant. was a matter o f heated debate.decision-making to a locally elected body. which was to be made up of seven elected representatives from designated regions within a political district ( Constitucion Politico. Chapter 2. . Larrazabal. also argued that fixing the number o f deputies for each diputacion at seven was too constrictive. pointed out that although it was one o f the least extensive American kingdoms. When Spanish deputies recommended establishing 40 Peynado. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Guatemala’s representative. especially when the provinces involved had a greater number o f counties (partidos) than deputies. Article 81. in fact. Arts. Antonio Larrazabal. Spanish historian Manuel Chust has called the diputacion provincial “the genesis o f federalism. the definition o f “province. Title 6.41 In effect. however. 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. 325-337). as well as other American deputies. At the Cortes. The Diputacion Provincial The Constitution did. the territory that would have its own diputacion. difficult. and in fact consolidated several. Instrucciones para la constitucion fundamental.” arguing that the establishment o f several o f these bodies in each viceroyalty fragmented the power of the viceroy. establish a body called the diputacion provincial. they were no more atomizing than the establishment o f intendancies decades previously. rather than an executively-appointed individual.

42 Diario de Sesiones de Cortes. 13 January 1812. and Mariano Robles for Chiapas—demanded a diputacion provincial for each o f their provinces. Costa Rica and Comayagua (Honduras). 7 August 1821. The news reached the kingdom of Guatemala in August o f the same year—too late—at the moment o f independence. 13S. 43 E l A m ig o d e la P atria. where the 6 d iputaciones p rovinciates created by the Cortes were expanded by the Mexicans in independence to 22. Chust bases his position on work by Nettie Lee Benson on the d iputacion p ro vin c ia l in Mexico. the Kingdom o f Guatemala was allotted two after the American interventions in Cadiz. representatives from Guatemala’s slighted districts— Florencio Castillo for Nicaragua and Costa Rica. and the second in Leon. L a cuestion n a cio n a l am ericana en las Cortes de Cadiz. 238 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. . Although the Amigo de la Patria printed the news “with pleasure as a gift to America in general. No 14 in Escritos d el L icenciado Jo se C ecilio d e l Valle. San Salvador and Chiapas in specific. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Francisco Morejon for Honduras (Comayagua). 42 Initially allocated only one diputacion provincial (DP). 1969). and responsible for Chiapas. Guatemala. and to Comayagua. for discussion o f these debates. p. vol. the Americas and Philippines were finally authorized a separate diputacion for each intendancy in May 1821. After repeated petitions. 2607. See Manuel Chust. Florencio Castillo in fact argued for a diputacion p rovin cia l that would include Nicaragua. 221 -231. with responsibility for Nicaragua and Costa Rica. 218-244.43 4 1 extremely reduced number o f diputaciones in the Americas (15 compared to the 42 for the Peninsula).” the consequences of denying provincial representation to the intendancies had already been made clear. which is very close to the decision taken by the Cortes. El Salvador and Honduras. L a cuestion na cio n a l am ericana . p. 2 (Guatemala: Ministerio de la Educacion Publica. p. The first was located in Guatemala City. p.

Title 3. Chapters 2 and 3 for voting procedures based on a sytsem of ju n ta s electorates held at the parish (parroquia ). The junta electoral de parroquia was comprised of all a parish’s vecinos. 530 & 638 for primary source documents.The Constitution provided that the same system of parish voting used to elect Cortes deputies was used for the deputies of the diputacion. district (p a rtid o ) and provincial (provincia ) level. In the case of deputies to the Cortes. 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. a more fruitful relationship developed. This body elected the electoifs) who would represent the district in the election in the capital o f the province (Article 59). According to Chust’s argument that the establishment o f the diputacion provincial represented a step towards federalism. initially staffed by its original 1814 members.45 Under the more lenient Captains General Carlos Urrutia and Gabino Gainza.44 This institution was. 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. 45 See Rodriguez. For example. An absolute majority was required for an election to be valid. 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. if no one met this minimum in the first balloting. Friction was particularly strong during the first constitutional period. meant to be an advisory board that could represent local and regional interests to the captain general and intendants. Central America’s two diputaciones acted to increase the scope o f their powers and chafed at restrictions enforced by imperial agents. by boat. for discussion & AGI Guatemala 502. or district capital (Articles 35. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.41). when Captain General Bustamante not only delayed the 1813 installation o f the Guatemala diputacion on grounds that seemed specious to that city’s leading residents. rather than waiting the several months the Mexico-Guatemala-Nicaragua 239 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. the two candidates with the greatest number o f votes would be put forward for a runoff (Articles 88-89). However. which met in the cabeza. . Central America clearly had proto-federalist leanings. Chapter 5. The C a d iz Experim ent. among the requests o f the DP were to the right to receive mail directly from Havana. each district would elect three tunes as many electors as the district had deputies to name (Article 63). but also blocked that body’s attempts to take certain decisions. an interest in limiting the authority of the center. the 1820 diputacion. that is. on paper.

in 1820. The same legajo also includes a 7 March 1821 representation o f the province’s Cortes deputy requesting complete separation from the administration o f Guatemala. demanded its own diputacion.4' Yet. Comayagua.46 Yet this federalism already hinted at the very local form that regionalism would take after independence. while couched in terms o f regional interests. Coordination with the intendants. and 1820 demonstrations of this body’s efficacy in setting up new administrative divisions to facilitate the work of the jueces de primeras letras. and to protest the Guatemalan districting commission's reassignment o f the district o f Nicoya to Costa Rica to bolster that province’s population so that it could elect a Cortes deputy. reflected those o f the overland took. the efforts o f intendant Tomos and the city council o f Comayagua achieved recognition from Guatemala o f their breakaway organization. Juan Bautista Gual (1812-1817) and Miguel Gonzalez Saravia (1817-1821. as a series o f correspondence between Nicaragua and Spain demonstrates in the 1812-1814 and again in the 1820-1821 period. Although at this time. based in Guatemala. made this body particularly effective. 240 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Instead o f consolidating provinces. AGI 530 includes Nicaragua’s 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. In 1813. .kingdom capital over local political and economic development. 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. the city’s attempts to establish an independent diputacion did not prosper. with the revival o f the constitution. 46 Several letters and testimonials from the DP of Nicaragua can be found in AGI Guatemala 530 and 531. the capital o f Honduras. the diputaciones provinciales earned in them the seeds for further fragmentation. son o f a former captain general o f Guatemala). the move o f Tomos and Comayagua. even while a petition to the authorities in Spain was pending. 47 AGI Guatemala 533. Nicaragua’s agenda to achieve full political autonomy within the existing political order was further promoted by the province’s representative to the Cortes. Pending: Petition: 15 February 1821.

. nor challenged the ayuntamiento as the 48 For the decision to reverse Tegucigalpa’s incorporation into Comayagua. as well as the town’s 241 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. appended to the intendancy o f Comayagua in 1791. Unsurprisingly. 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.48 Had the Cortes authorized a diputacion for Comayagua. the institution rapidly became the authority appealed to when new political practices led to friction. channeling disputes and applying legal reasoning and common sense to resolve local and district problems. Through its work. Leon and Granada apparently cooperated in the Nicaraguan diputacion . The diputacion in no way compromised the role or the power o f the and not the entire province. Regardless of the imperfections perceived in the distribution o f diputaciones provinciates in Central America. The mining region o f Tegucigalpa. 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. but engaged in one of the isthmus’ most bitter civil wars after independence. On the other hand. 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. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. preferring to renew traditional ties with Guatemala City. was released in the wake o f the 1812 uprising to resume its former status as a politically independent alcaldia mayor. the same men who had spent two decades securing the district’s political autonomy refused to participate in Comayagua’s appeal.

referred to as the ayuntamiento constitucional. pp. Articles 312-315. 320. They also. regidores. . but by all adult male citizens o f the city or town. or souls). in time. According to the Constitution. helped inform Central American cities. and would govern over a territory {termino). sindicos. Chapter 1. These articles explained the indirect system o f voting that would have electors select by plurality (not unanimity) their mayors. 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. general interest and community needs.50 Furthermore. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. this new town council. the highly educated members o f the diputacion. Instead. see Luis Pedro Taracena. towns and villages o f the means to implement new legal and political provisions. including that o f the city council. Title 6.representative o f a community. 300-304. 242 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 50 C onstitucion P olitico d e la M onarquia Espanola. permanent seats would be abolished. came to interpret the Spanish legal code in ways that best suited Central American circumstances.49 through their decision-making. as had previous economic. the new Spanish authorities determined to bolster the role of city government at the same time they favored new provincial forms o f organization. balancing the law. 49 See Appendix Q for names o f members o f the diputaciones pro vin cia tes o f Guatemala and Nicaragua. and the election would be conducted not by an outgoing council. and secretaries. would be established in any town with 1000 residents {almas. such as elections. One o f the most significant legislative ideas o f the Cortes was the institution o f democratic or representative political institutions. Ilusion politico. family and political ties to Guatemala. all members o f this council would be elected. 1812.

51 Apparently. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Spanish territories— Spain and its overseas provinces—held the title and civil rights o f a Spaniard. “Mexican Municipal Electoral Reform. this democratization o f the town council meant that for the first time since the conquest. all free men bom and resident.52 A later decree did expand the number o f communities with local self-government. 54 C onstitucion P olitico d e la M onarquia Espanola. Article 5.councils. based on population density. Indian and Spaniard living in a reasonably extensive community would be governed by an identical city council. Central America’s deputies did not object. . Title 6. II. and likely poor. 243 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. community.54 51 C onstitucion P olitico d e la M onarquia Espanola. Title 1. defined a community deemed significant enough to merit self-government. Laws and Statutes. or connections at court. but welcomed. However. 53 Spain. The effects o f such a change are examined below. 1812. two aldermen and a syndic for towns with less than 200 in population. 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. Chapter 1. the services rendered by the population to the Crown. rather than relative merits based on the type of population. In the Americas. Paras. 23 May 1812. Chapter 2. 221-225.” pp. 1810-1822. Coleccion d e los decretos y ordenes q u e han expedido las Cortes gen era tes y extraordinarias. “Formacion de los ayuntamientos constitucionales. or freed within. 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. 64-65. this change to the form of city government. Decreto CLXII. 1 and 4. According to the Constitution. Article 310.” pp.53 Absolute criteria. allotting a minimum o f one mayor. 52 CufTin. 1812.

and in fact those bom in Spain. MS.57 However. was ended—or almost. The Central American deputies had no objection to this inclusive definition. Chapter 3. Title 2. Articles 6-9. the tradition o f considering only men o f European origin. 58 C onstitucion P olitico de la M onarquia E spanola . not all qualified for citizenship. Spaniards o f African origin could receive political citizenship only through individual application. Articles 27-33. pay taxes. 1812.59 Nor did non-Spaniards count in the population counts that would determine the number o f deputies each territory would send to the Cortes. Title 2. Spaniards’ civil rights required them to bear arms. 60 C onstitucion P olitico de la M onarquia Espanola. Chapter 2.With this one decision.61 Those of African origin were specifically excluded. only citizens could vote for national authorities (Deputies to Cortes).60 If all free men could be Spaniards. Title 1. love the patria. Chapter 4. as Spaniards. 56 AGI Guatemala 530. 6 1 C onstitucion P olitico de la M onarquia Espanola. 57 C onstitucion P olitico de la M onarquia E spanola. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and elect municipal officials. Chapter 4. Memoria a las Cortes en Favor de los Indios. 1812. Title 2. . Articles 18-26. “Conceiving Central America: Public.55 Larrazabal even left a proposal with the Cortes on the merits o f educating Central America’s indigenous that proposed to use funds accrued from the Constitution’s 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. The qualification process was particularly rigorous. Title 3. and observe the Constitution. significantly more so than for the naturalization of a “foreigner” 55 Jordana Dym. Article 23. its laws and authorities. 1812. 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. 59 C onstitucion P olitico de la M onarquia Espanola.” NYU Graduate History Student Association Seminar.58 obtain municipal posts. 1812. May 1997. 244 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Article 35. 1812. Chapter 2. Patria and Nation in the Gazeta de G uatem ala (1797-1807).

with his own capital. 245 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. office or industry. Chapter 4. but the Cortes denied his logic. Spaniards o f African descent were excluded from the body politic. In 1820. Central America’s statesmen were among the most vocal opponents o f the disenfranchisement. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.64 After the publication o f the Constitution. and exercised a “useful” profession. 1812 .” He also had to be a legitimate son o f married parents (ingenuo). although they were incorporated into a new civil society.who was presumed to be European-bom. Title 2. See also Rodriguez. Cadiz. C ortes. and was married to a woman o f similar background. 6 September 1811. 1811-1813).. or distinguished talent. 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 . the Costa Rican deputy. 60-63.. 63 D iario d e las D iscusiones y actas d e las C ortes (23 volumes. resided in the Spanish dominions. although they were ultimately unsuccessful in convincing their peninsular peers to change the text.63 Guatemalan deputy Larrazabal proposed that the castas at least be allowed to vote (voz activa ) if not run for office (voz pasiva ). 64 D iario d e lps . Article 22 & 321. A man with African heritage could petition for citizenship when he could demonstrate “services to the patria . Sessions o f 3. Florencio Castillo. Central American politicians did not let the matter rest. In other words. pp. The C adiz Experim ent.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. 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. application and conduct. 10 and 11 September 1811. 4. .

p. D. 221-231. despite an assessment by the Consulado de Comercio that this group was “the least useful caste for its innate weakness and abandon. however. 2193. 246 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Instruccion al diputado a Cortes. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. doctors. but o f the mixed-race descendants o f the Africans who had come to the isthmus in varying categories since the sixteenth century. 138-146. 15746. master artisans. had practical reverberations in the Kingdom o f Guatemala. Furthermore.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. This population was mostly free.” a significant number o f men o f African origin were militiamen. 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. . farmers. 66 See. namely.citizenship. mulato and pardo —made up a third o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala’s population. lawyers. retailers (tratantes) and other professionals. in Central America.66 The question. 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. The disenfranchisement o f this important economic and social class would contribute to this group’s willingness to support movements for 65 AGCA A1. La cuestion nacional americana en las Cortes de Cadiz. the exclusion not o f slaves. According to contemporary statistics. the casta population—called varyingly ladino. ecclesiastics. Exp. The instructions appear to have been drafted by future Guatemalan president Jose Francisco de Cordova. landowners (propietarios). artists. for example. Julian Urruela. The exclusion o f men o f African origin meant.44 Leg. fF.

These communities existed throughout the isthmus. in fact. Most have some “Spaniards” resident. p a rd o or ladino. drafting local municipal ordinances (which the 67 For a breakdown o f the population and professions of the castas. as Guatemala City representative Antonio Larrazabal pointed out. The nine responsibilities listed for the ayuntamiento constitucional were health. but it seems likely.. Truxillo (Honduras). 11 March 1824. C om pendio de la historia . Cartago (Costa Rica) & Villa Vieja (Costa Rica). Textos Fundam entales.68 What would replace the ayuntamiento constitucional in these communities? The Constitution made no provisions. 1811). The casta majority towns include Masagua (Escuintla). 247 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. local funds. “Apuntamientos sobre la agricultura y comercio del reyno de Guatemala. in Guatemala.69 Larrazabal did not point out. ed. Most towns. Villa Nueva de Petapa (Sacatepequez). see Juarros.independence from Spain. security. 150-170.67 It would also. deprive 30 to 40 communities o f local government that they had enjoyed under colonial rule. and Manuel Vela. reprinted in Menendez. Nicaragua and Costa Rica. 70-82 and pp. San Miguel (San Salvador). Las Estanzuelas (San Salvador). but are primarily Indian or mulato. in providing a uniform set of responsibilities for the new councils. The Constitution succeeded. San Salvador. 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. at ieast on paper. hospital. schools. For more information. had a significant ladino or mulato population. Sonaguera (Honduras). Honduras. 68 For a sampling o f Central American city populations around 1800. passim..Real Consulado en Junta de Gobiemo de 20 de octubre de 1810” (Nueva Guatemala: Manuel Arevalo. tax collection. since their entire populations were made up o f ladinos or mulatos. . Letter. Amatitan (Sacatepequez). Juarros characterizes the residents of most of the Kingdom o f Guatemala’s towns in the early nineteenth century. 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 council’s tasks. roads and other public works. see Appendix E3. San Luis Salcaja (Totonicapan). Vela points out that the educated castas supported independence movements. Granada (Nicaragua). Realejo (Nicaragua). Madrid. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Quezaltenanago (Quezaltenango). Honduras). see Antonio Larrazabal. Nueva Segovia (Nicaragua). San Fernando Omoa (fort. pp.

La cuestion n acional am ericana en la s Cortes d e Cadiz. including Costa Rica’s Castillo. p. like censorship boards authorized to police the regulations o f the 1820 law on freedom o f the press. 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. mestizo or mulato. and the promotion o f agriculture.71 Even the council’s relationship with a district’s governor was unchanged. No. 41. prevailed in putting the governors. more particularly. industry and commerce. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in the overseas territories. While some American deputies. 70 C onstitucion Politico d e la M onarquia Espanola. 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. 1812. 221-231. Chapter 1. but had town councils annually select the ju n ta s d e 248 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 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. renamed jefes politicos . but to ask that other communities take on similar burdens. If the responsibilities o f the ayuntamientos constitucionales did not represent a marked break from those o f the traditional ayuntamiento. regardless of whether the majority o f residents were indigenous. including the ardent liberal the Count o f Toreno. 7 1 Ley de Libertad de imprenta (22 October 1820).70 These were responsibilities the colonial cabildo already possessed.Diputacion Provincial and then the Cortes would approve). at the head o f council meetings. Article 321. their codification. 69 Chust. argued that the new ayuntamientos constitucionales should no longer be presided by governors. Title 6. E l E ditor C onstitucional. The Cortes also continued to draw on city councils as a source for members o f other new bodies. . Spaniards.

7 March 1821. however. . 12 Cortes. 249 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.72 In 1813. .4 DP. Each ju nta was supposed to have three times as many members as the ayuntamiento. Manuel Lopez de la Plata. Guatemala City’s resistance and capitulation after a request by the captain general can be found in its minutes for meetings o f 6. including increasing the number o f judges in the audience. 9 July 1813. Expediente 15748. However.— a new name for the governor equivalent to the former captain general. all o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala’s deputies to Cortes jointly petitioned to implement the provision establishing the judges. 13. and urged that the other related provisions o f the law. San Salvador’s council actively sought two. Actas de Cabildo. Not surprisingly.The other area o f municipal government directly affected by the Constitution and subsequent legislation was that o f administration o f justice.74 Guatemala City’s 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. and February. who were to be named by the political chief (/e/e politico superior). The Guatemala City town council in particular put significant energy into opposing the establishment of the jueces de letras. be swiftly put in place. this task would fall to judges o f the first instance (jueces de primera instancia). resistance to implementation posed problems on the ground. resistance was not a universal response. 19 June and 27 July 1821. censura de hecho to judge the merits of the case. 7 3 AGI Guatemala 446. Antonio Larrazabal. Decree o f 23 May 1812. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mariano Robles. 44 Legajo 2194. Paras 1. Under the new system. 475). and Francisco Morejon to Regency. Minutes. mayors would no longer serve as judges o f the first instance. 16. 2. Jose Ignacio Avila. Instead. removing the administration o f justice to disinterested judges. Letter o f Florencio Castillo. AGCA A l.73 They saw the separation o f powers as beneficial for the public. at least in the provincial capitals. The San Salvador letter to the Captain General appeared in the Editor Constitutional o f 27 February 1821 (p.

the DP and governor suggested that the ayuntamiento o f Guatemala fund its judges 250 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Table 5. A2-Alcalde Segundo Sources: AGCA A1 Leg. two o f whom had already served in that city council— Santiago Moreno and Alejandro Diaz Cabeza de Vaca. 27 July 1821.76 Thus. Abogados examinados en la Real Aud. 1820. 15748. Exp. was mayor o f Guatemala City in 1832. an act that the Cortes never completed. Since the Constitution stipulated that implementation would follow the redistricting o f the Spanish empire into provinces and districts. 31 August 1821. when republican governments set up separate judicial systems. 9. & Indice de los grados de Bachiller conferidos. Par. Exp. His son. 63. with college degrees Year-Mayor Education Name Lawyer Antonio Jose Juarros y Lacunza 1808-A1. 15748. 2194 Exp. The jefe politico superior named the first three judges for the capital in July 1821. 2194.1: Mayors o f Guatemala City. 6940. also a lawyer. 1808-1821. Actas de Cabildo. 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. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1814b(Al) Pedro Jose Arrivillaga y Coronado Bachiller 1809-A2 Bachiller Domingo Jose Pavon 1811-A2. . it would be after independence. 1816 A l Lawyer 1812-A2(1).44 Leg. Manuel Jose.44 Leg. Exp. 23814. choosing three lawyers. Del Reino de Guatemala (1801-1861). On this date. 2756. no juices de letras took office in the Kingdom o f Guatemala during the first constitutional period of 1812-1814. Session. 57773-57779. The third was Jose Mariano Jauregui. 76AGCA A 1. as well as difficulties of this innovation would be 75 AGCA A 1. AGCA Al Leg. 15 days before independence.Alcalde Primero. No. 1750-1821.75 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. Actas de Cabildo. 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. that the advantages or disadvantages.

the resistance o f Guatemala City demonstrated that no matter what the regime. as each type of official and authority swore its oath. 77 See the Gazeta de Guatemala. No 3665 (1814). Caja 112. religious and military authorities to throw impressive local fiestas. No 3583. 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 1820.77 Nor was the joy a theoretical one in which the ideas o f the constitution were feted while its provisions were not enacted. however.” Examples of the elections of the various kinds o f electors can be found for Tegucigalpa in ANH Fondo Colonial. a city council could continue to oppose unwelcome policy changes.78 Both diputaciones through a disused tax. . 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. “Procesos Electorates y Clase Politica.felt in Central America. pomp and circumstance possible. 78 For details on the elections o f the period. military men and city councilors authored the papers. For activities o f the Guatemala City council to implement voting instructions and 251 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Cortes deputies and ayuntamientos constitucionales decreed by the Constitution. governors. 2 October 1812 for an account of Guatemala City’s celebration over the oath o f the Constitution in 1812. Churchmen. make speeches and otherwise accompany their oaths with all the joy. It is not clear that their courts had yet convened. Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa (1813-1814) and Caja 114. see Avendano. The council also discussed a request for notaries for the judges. Elections took place regularly in communities large and small to elect the diputaciones provinciates. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. No.XVI. f. In the interim. Libro de Actas. T. The Constitutional of C&diz in the Kingdom of Guatemala The Constitution o f 1812 reached Central America months after its promulgation. and upon its reinstatement in the fall o f 1820. Upon its arrival. set off military salutes. 297. 280. hold masses. Central American leaders implemented the new magtia carta with evident enthusiasm.

Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18 December 1820. In the parish o f Tegucigalpa alone. the diputacion corresponded with the mining town o f Corpus. Same to Alcalde Mayor de Escuintla. Exp.79 While it is unclear just how many towns instituted constitutional city councils in this period. San Martin’s 252 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 15738. all but four had at least 250 residents. o f the 15 communities listed in 1815. 1813 and Leg. In 1820. 1820. AMS. The note informs that in addition to the five councils reported on 5 January.9 See Appendix Q and Table 6. 2193. San Martin (Chimaltenango). indirect evidence suggests that the number the number of towns with full councils grew exponentially. 3585. T3 for populations. seven had ayuntamientos constitucionales. with representatives from their multiple districts. Leg 2190. was significant. 1809-1820. Libro de Actas.44. it would appear that. Libro de Elecciones. 6 December 1820. . Minutes DP. Certainly.81 In addition. and the Indian reduccion of supervise votes in the capital. San Antonio (Suchitepequez ). the towns o f Nacaome and Orica had reported the installation o f their ayuntamientos constitucionales. Same to Corregidor de Chimaltenango. . the governor o f Cartago (Costa Rica) informed that all but two towns (Alajuela. Libro de Actas.2 80 See Appendix F. in addition to the dozen Spanish town councils that immediately and competently changed their organization. with populations o f 200 or greater. Quaguiniquilapa (Escuintla). dozens o f new town councils organized or were organized throughout Central America. the number o f eligible towns. and quickly resumed operations in 1820 when the constitutional system was restored. No. 20 December 1820. Caja 1800-1809.80 Although one cannot make a generalization based on one district. Based on correspondence by governors and newly-installed city councils with the Guatemala diputacion provincial in 1820. 20 January 1814. Corpus' ayuntamiento constitutional took office on 20 September. in the alcaldia mayor (Tegucigalpa). 8 1 Carlos Urrutia to N.provinciates were in operation by 1813. ANH Fondo Colonial. By January 1814. Ayuntamiento del Mineral del Corpus. Caja 112. 20 September 1820. most districts succeeded in installing at least a few councils. see AGCA A1. Exp 15746.

the conquest towns and cities reacted with enthusiasm and rapidity to the establishment of democratic councils. 28. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. p. Vol. which had relied on regidores bienales to fill vacant council & Quaginiquilapa's had doubts on election procedures. 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. 83 See Chapter 5. 15 September. and Quezaltenango’s was informed that constitutional cabildos in the capital (cabecera ). Documentos Historicos. provoked little resistance. 1930). Ayuntamiento Constitucional de Comayagua a la Regencia. 84 AGI Guatemala 533. 2 (Guatemala:Diario de Centroamerica. Documentos Historicos.82 By the middle of 1821. San Antonio's council sought to establish primary schools. 5 November 1812. 1820.84 In Guatemala City. and pueblo o f Texutla were insufficient. 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 government in Guatemala City believed there were over 200 constitutional councils located throughout the territory. Nor. In other towns like Sonsonate. 69-70. V. 2. San Salvador’s list o f installed councils was approved in November. 253 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. For the most part. apparently. instituting the popular election of all city councilors. 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 Kingdom’s new ayuntamientos constitucionales after holding parish elections. 7 October and 6 November. 82 Minutes o f DP meeting. 79. Barrio de San Marcos. pp. . 21. had conducted elections.81. the change provoked no difficulty.Escen y Paenca). with the immediate cessation o f all perpetual office holding. did the shift from a restricted number of voters (the outgoing town councilors) to popular election.

. powerful men in Antigua and Guatemala City were providing lists of 85 AGI Guatemala 722.seats. Nieto was apparently prepared to use the threat of force to have the electors select one o f the city’s two mayors from the regidores propietarios who had lost their municipal posts with the switch to the constitutional system. 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.85 Perhaps to appease those whose service had apparently been discarded. there is no record that the shift to a constitutional council met with substantive opposition. the Cortes authorized the former cabildantes the honors.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. treatment and uniform they had used when in office. Apparently. 9 November 1812 and 26 September 1813. Pablo Nieto. 254 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.” Tomos responded. Responding to Tomos’ first letter. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In at least one city. The electors o f Comayagua reported that one o f their number. the diputacion provincial o f Guatemala issued regulations regarding the freedom o f each elector to choose his own candidate. Comayagua. a former regidor propietario. By 1820. was someone whose efforts would lead to tragedy in the election o f the 1813 ayuntamiento constitucional if the intendant did not act. a permanent alderman attempted to pressure local and Spanish authorities to keep his position. Letters o f Intendant Juan Antonio Tomos. This is not to say that individual aldermen found their loss of office welcome. 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. driving the intendant to establish military guards during the election and swearing-in ceremony for the new council.

5 January 1821. Vol. 534. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23 April 1821. In this case. 2. 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.88 In specific cases. Casaguastlan.candidates to electors. Same to Archbishop. the diputacion forwarded the complaint to the town council. telling that body to call witnesses. Pagination refers to the republication o f the entire run o f the E d ito r in two volumes 1969. 4 April 1813. E l E ditor C onstitucional. Session 13. p. Received by the Ayuntamiento of Nicaragua. but had not installed ayuntam ientos in these pueblos either. No. Vol. December 1820. and asked the archbishop to mobilize his priests to help with the organization. the 1820 diputacion and captain general urged governors and other judges to accelerate the establishment and installation o f these new councils. Nazario Evora. a priest apparently used commissioners to provide such a list in a poor neighborhood to drum up votes. the diputacion event threatened to fine corregidores who did not seem interested in installing the constitutional councils in Indian villages. 26. Carlos Urrutia to Corregidor de Chiquimula. led to an uneven introduction o f constitutional councils. Order. 88 Carlos Urrutia to Intendants and Alcaldes Mayores. 1813. 1 Oct. The diputacion responded with a threat o f a 200 peso fine to the Corregidor if he did not immediately establish the councils. A similar case from Antigua Guatemala. and demand that in future it take preventive measures. p. 2. 87 In 1820. 21. p. 255 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. met with identical treatment. Sumatan and Chiquimula not to obey the alcaldse constitucionales. and in one case. E l E ditor C onstitucional (1820-1821) (Guatemala: Ministerio de Educacion.9 December 1820. governors in Indian-majority provinces like 84 AGI Guatemala 533. a resident o f the Candelaria barrio. who could not be judged by the secular system. Diputacion Provincial de Guatemala.89 In general. in which the governor reported that influential residents were providing electors with lists o f individuals to vote for. In addition. 44. stating he had told the indians o f the pueblos o f Pimirala. 89 D ocum entos H istoricos . and reprimand them. so that he takes the appropriate action regarding the cleric. . the diputacion also wrote to the archbishop. 34. 1969). The Syndic o f the constitutional council o f Jalapa informed on the corregidor. D ocum entos H istoricos. While the governors o f San Salvador and Costa Rica reported success in establishing many ayuntamientos constitucionales. v. 2. 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. • 87 For those places either uninterested or incapable. 18 December 1820.

o hijo de Indio y bianco: el mulato. o Americano. “indio: el Blanco Europeo. p. They] are Spanish in the third meaning (acepcion ). However. or son of an Indian and white. the captain general’s Tegucigalpa-born advisor Jose Cecilio del Valle. Captain General Jose Bustamante.” who were all bom in Spanish territory. D ocum entos H isto rico s .Quezaltenango and Chiquimula preferred to establish fewer councils in Indian villages. the sambo. In 1812.90 The most contentious part o f the establishment of the ayuntamientos constitucionales had to do with the heterogeneous nature o f Central America’s population and the exclusion o f the castas from both active and passive citizenship. leaders in Central America found a way to include many castas among citizens in practice. Minutes o f DP meeting.” who were a more restricted group. the Spanish or American White. for it had distinguished between “Spaniards.”91 This was in line with the Cortes definition. Part 2. Number 3. 69-70. the mulato. 81. For Guatemala. 15 September. 1820. and “citizens. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2. Vol. 7 October and 6 November. el mestizo. a junta preparatoria convened in Guatemala City to prepare the instructions for the Kingdom’s first constitutional elections. “Spaniards” would include the following groups: “Indian. son o f Indian and black[. the commission’s Instruccion 90 See note 82. 1812. or son o f a black and white. The text of the Spanish reads. Since technically the mulatos and pardos o f Central America were excluded from participating in the new democratic processes. Article 1. the mestizo. . 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. ostensibly because o f difficulties this would cause with tribute collection. o hijo de negro y bianco: el 256 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. archbishop Ramon Casaus. 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.

or their natural or legitimate sons. it took a step not contemplated by the Constitution o f 1812. not a servant or dependent. Article 2. that “even if its vecinos cannot exercise rights as sambo. the commission followed the Spanish code. numerous men were eligible to seek citizenship through this mechanism. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and Footnote. 257 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. . son espanoles en la tercera acepcion. in theory. 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. either American or European. It further argued. Specifically. la misma en que se tomara esta voz siempre que se use de ella. the Instruccion argued for their inclusion on the basis o f silence in the official code.” 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. 25 years o f age or older. Indian or mestizo. Number 3. but in explicitly including natural sons. o hijo de Indio y negro. If. the notes to the text suggest the local preference for inclusion o f the castas as citizens. and “white. With Central America’s militia largely made up o f pardo and mulato soldiers. the junta defined a citizen as a man.began to take liberties with the definition o f citizenship to reflect local reality.” Except for the last part. 1812. the Junta repeated the injunctions of the Cortes that excluded the numerous men o f partial African origin from citizenship.92 The Instruccion then went further with regard to the castas. who was solvent.” 93 This note broadly hinted to men who had supported Ferdinand VII to petition the Cortes for citizenship on those grounds. Part 1. In fact. 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.

the purpose o f the instruction had been understood. Article 2 Number 12.95 Both groups were participating in the new political system. 95 AGI Guatemala 533. In some cases. elected mulatos to municipal positions. 1812. 18 November 1814. In another case.”94 The majority o f vecinos disqualified from citizenship under the constitution were those with some African origin. when the alcalde m a yo r named Gutierrez mayor after disqualifying mayor-elect Eugenio Rascon on legal grounds. so Gutierrez did not serve in 1817. Juan Santos Gutierrez. Yet occasionally. including that o f mayor. which previously had restricted office holding to the Spanish and Creole elite. In 1817. See Appendix M. they will conduct the elections. the castas received the message that they could participate extensively in local politics. 96 Archivo Municipal de Sonsonate. the town council objected to Gutieirez’ heritage as well as the governor’s authority to make the appointment. Caja 3. . 1812. ff. 40v-51v. The constitutional council o f Masaya (Nicaragua) wrote on behalf o f the vecinos Espanoles y ladinos in 1814. 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 . 258 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. even if one (the ladinos) was technically excluded. Documents from his time in office make no reference to his race/ethnicity. the Sonsonate city council. was a mulatto.96 Since all the new cabildantes were by definition citizens. 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 . Article 2. 1809-1817. it is hard to document other cases of natural inclusion. 1800-1809. Number 1. elected alcalde segundo in 1814 by the alcalde mayor. Libro de Elecciones. however. Carta del ayuntamiento de Masaya. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. pardos and mulatos might participate in local electoral processes even if formally excluded from doing so. indicating that in some provinces. The letter praised the behavior o f the priest Policarpo Irigoyen during the “political convulsions” affecting the province. so the implication was that even ladinos. and Footnote J.citizens. The a udiencia sustained both Rascon’s ouster and the city’s right to elect its own mayor. Part 1. Part 2. the integration of ladinos or mulatos into the body politic seems to have happened with little or no friction. However. Certainly in practice. he did go on to serve as town councilor and mayor four more times after independence.

DP Session 5. 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 local politics.97 In others cases. 259 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. call for a new election. both as electors and as officials. Perhaps the reason Tomos was able to achieve ascendancy because the 16 electors had elected men who weren’t “nobles” to the new ayuntamiento 98 Minutes o f DP meeting. 26 September 1813. the diputacion once again instructed the governor to prevent exclusion for unfounded attributions o f mulato or pardo origins. 120. Comayagua. . indicating both the acceptance o f new terminology and rules. When the artisans o f San Miguel (San Salvador) protested their exclusion from municipal elections in 1820. The DP did not. the attitude it promoted was to assume non-African heritage and accept someone’s citizenship unless previous proof had been laid. and in these cases we see the both Guatemala City elite’s active support o f casta citizenship and the problems that the principle of one law for all had in practice. made similar complaints. 2 (Guatemala: Diario de Centroamerica. 99 El Editor Constitucional."9 % When vecinos o f Comayagua and Choluteca. 19 March 1821. pp. Vol. 17 November 1820. 486-487. In the Comayagua dispute during the election o f the first constitutional ayuntamiento.99 In other words. 1820. 1930). p. Documentos Historicos. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. then there would be no castas to exclude. 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). 17 November. however. The individuals were Jacinto Rubi o f Comayagua and Jose Flamencos o f Choluteca. the diputacion provincial had to intervene to ensure that ladinos could vote. The Guatemala City diputacion was particularly clear on the point. However. the DP refused to make 97 AGI Guatemala 722. both in Honduras. The Central American leadership also attempted to include the Indian population in elections. Letter of Intendant Juan Antonio Tomos. Issue 19. without the absolute eradication o f underlying distinctions. however. If the castas could not be included in the citizenry of the new' order.

pp. 26 September 1813. 102 Carlos Urrutia to Alcalde Mayor. 3 December 1820. 57-58. p. Comayagua intendant Tomos made a special effort in 1813 to find shoes and clothes for an Indian elector in Comayagua. 21. '“‘Diputacion de Guatemala to Cortes. 260 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1930). No. However.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. Letter of Intendant Juan Antonio Tomos.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. The governor was Juan Jose Echeverria. 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. 2 (Guatemala: Diario de Centroamerica. Verapaz.concessions that would guarantee that towns with majority indigenous populations would have at least a significant representation in the new ayuntamientos constitucionales. apparently because the man was too intimidated to go alone. Volume 2 (Guatemala: Diario de Centroamerica. Reprinted in Documentos Historicos.100 Juan Jose Echeverria. . but to remind them o f the abrogation of service to priests. reprinted in Documentos Historicos. 1930). governor o f Quezaltenango. Comayagua. received particular praise for the “zeal and vigilance" with which he established constitutional councils in that primarily indigenous province. 18. the diputacion emphasized the importance o f municipal service. and to escort him to the polling site. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. It urged the governor not only to convince the aldermen to remain in their positions. because o f the need to support their parish priest and pay for local festivities. Vol. and the need 100 AGI Guatemala 722.

[T]here should not be two classes o f Ayuntamiento. 42. according to instruction to be elected without distinction or any difference between Indians and ladinos. By July 1821. the DP reported the governor. 3 July 1821. Bujons insisted on the oldstyle Indian council in which residents remained subject to the governor and not the mayor in ordinary judicial cases.103 Although the reasons for the Indians’ request is not stipulated. pp. 54. commissioners nor judges (jueces preventivas ). The Mayors in these councils are ordinary. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Indians themselves did not wish to have a constitutional cabildo at all. to the Spanish Cortes for repeated failure to install constitutional councils in Indian villages. 24 January 1821. The insistence that indigenous and ladino village residents share in city government was also consistent with answers to similar requests. which “various Indians” reduce multiple governments. to one ayuntamiento constitucional. with only constitutional councils remaining. 2 (Guatemala: Diario de Centroamerica. and with authority over all countrymen (paisanos). 103 DP Minutes. but found this proposal rejected on legal grounds. Mariano Bujons. If the response to such a request seems unsympathetic. 141. Urrutia to Cortes. one for each group. the governor sought permission to reserve one third o f council seats for the city’s indigenous. in 1820. The Chimaltenango governor received numerous orders from the diputacion provincial in 1820 and 1821 to install the district’s constitutional councils. 1930). The councils were. In Quezaltenango. the old cabildos should cease. Carlos Urrutia to Corregidor o f Chiquimula. And there should be no governors. 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. Indians and Ladinos. 261 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. . the implication in the DP’s 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. 29 December 1820. Vol. in Documentos Historicos.

22 January 1814. pp. urging action “so our spirit remains calm. the ladinos “hate our group (parcialidad) to death. 100. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1930). 2 (Guatemala: Diario de Centroamerica.” 105 Joint government in Chinameca had led not to an 1 0 4 Minutes. The letter is signed 262 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Chinameca (San Salvador). loyal vassals o f a well-loved monarch. 131. 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. DP Meeting. . Vol. and the Indians feared the implications of his tenure in office. provided a new outlet for expression o f old frictions. which eliminated separate political spheres for Indians and other members of Guatemalan society. As these cases hint. The mayor.” Mayoral elections for 1814 had led to the nomination o f one of the principal smugglers. Caja 1. had cooperated with the whites (blancos) o f the district to end the ladinos ’ clandestine tobacco farming.104 Essentially. this decision meant that the Constitution ended a centuries-old tradition o f Indian government in Quezaltenango. Seccion Antigua. in Documentos Historicos. abolishing the Indian authorities and forcing them to compete with Spaniards. Folder 2. Elections became a means to express conflict in communities in which different ethnic groups resided and had hostile relations. 30 October and 29 November 1820. The letter ended with an implicit threat. the establishment o f a constitutional government. one for each community. Narciso Peres. 105 AGN (San Salvador).preferring the traditional separation o f councils. argued that since the Indians. Letter of the Aicaide de Chinameca to Captain General Jose de Bustamante. 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 community’s control.

This case was brought to my attention Prof. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.106 His knowledge undercuts arguments that the fine points o f political policies were beyond the reach o f the countryside. by the city scribe. MA). Mayor Peres’ request was supported in a letter by one o f Chinameca’s blancos. so he determined to write to the captain general. If a majority of residents in small towns did not read or understand new laws. 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. and capable of acting within changing political parameters. Worcester. 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. treated differently by colonial authorities. the six electors who were chosen to elect the new town council. Jose Maria Palencia. Second. after the ladinos ’ hatred o f the whites and Indians grew with the undercutting o f their illegal trade. but to competition between them. literate residents were generally aware o f their new governments. 263 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 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.agreement between two bitterly-opposed communities. . Manuel Trinidad Flores. Aldo Lauria Santiago (College of the Holy Cross. First. According to Palencia. Because o f the newly-elected mayor’s past record as a contrabandist. so that they could control the town. Palencia’s letter is interesting on several grounds. Palencia’s request to the intendant o f the province not to confirm the elections had borne no fruit. who provided further details o f how the ladinos had succeeded in taking over the town’s government.

By mechanisms that are not clear from the case. Spanish-speaking and integrated into the legal and illegal commercial circuits o f Central America. 107 AGN (San Salvador). The problems o f a single legal system and equal citizenship rights. Folder 2. . Without overemphasizing the implications o f one case. Seccion Antigua. Why? Because the individual who had been elected to Chinameca’s mayoralty was being encouraged in his “pride” by residents o f that city. 8 January 1814. and the other group feared the consequences. and used the new system to change the ground rules for their local relations o f power. Title 2. the purely local election had been influenced by the powerful elites o f the district cabecera. this example. This article included among the reasons for suspension o f citizenship rights that o f recent sentencing for a crime. The group in control was the ladino— hispanized. Active and organized participation did. Chinameca (San Salvador). the constitutional city council o f Chinameca and its administrative and symbolic authority. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Indians found that a majority-population did not necessarily lead to control o f the new elective forms o f government. Article 25. touted by liberals like Pedro Molina as a solution to 106 Constitucion politico de la monarquia espanola.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. from each other or from their political capital. one group had managed to use the new system to gain absolute control of election of. Letter o f Jose Maria Palencia to Captain General Jose de Bustamante. does hint how the elite’s push to include castas as citizens had as a deliberate or accidental consequence to further disenfranchise Indian communities. Creoles in the countryside were not isolated. when examined alongside the decisions o f the DP in similar cases. Chapter 4.107 In other words. 264 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Caja 1. and membership in.

In Comayagua. They also designed and paid for the erection o f a monument to the constitution in Comayagua’s town square. The proactive stance o f the council dismayed the captain general. not only made patriotic speeches which they dispatched to Spain in hope o f attracting official notice. which recognized the sign o f loyalty that the act represented.centuries o f inequity. city government also proved an important institution by which the Kingdom o f Guatemala’s Creoles and Spaniards could demonstrate their continued allegiance to Spain. who felt his own role was slighted. the new ayuntamientos constitucionales also had citizenship rights and duties. Kingdom capital Guatemala City assumed the role o f distributor o f decrees to other cities and towns o f its district.108 If individuals had citizenship rights that allowed them to vote for city councilors. once all such squares were renamed Plaza de la Constitucion by a decree o f the Cortes in August o f 1812. regidor Juan Fernandez Lindo and his son Joaquin.109 Both Guatemala City and San Salvador cast medals honoring the kidnapped king. that were to be worn by the councilors. for example. would haunt the new Central American federation after independence. Beyond its technical responsibilities. arguing that such a concession would allow the 108 See. his essays in El Editor Constitucional (2nd volume). 265 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. . Ferdinand VII. by their wives. 1 0 9 AGI Guatemala 624. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. also a council member. and in the case o f Guatemala City. but was approved by the Regency in Spain. seeking permission to have their constitutional plaza declared a place o f asylum. Guatemala City’s town council went one step further. directly and indirectly supporting the Spanish connection.

16 July 1813. Libro de Actas Municipales. Tomos. 15739. Such a declaration.” Yet the same session also noted that the council had received newspapers informing o f the abdication on 30 August. 1801-1832. . and with no effect. Actas de Cabildo.. was not necessarily an automatic response to the news o f turmoil on the Peninsula. 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. Exp. 1 1 1 AMT.44. In Tegucigalpa.110 In addition to respecting and promulgating the new laws issuing from Cadiz. This request was denied. 22 September 1808. while issued by many councils. to appreciate the new circumstances afforded by the constitutional system. The intendant o f Honduras’ notice to Tegucigalpa arrived even later. 10 January 1513. without recognizing any foreign sovereignty. the council session o f 22 September 1808 recorded a decision to declare the French pressure on Ferdinand VH to abdicate as “violent. 2190. Guatemala City. the most direct way that a council could demonstrate loyalty to the deposed monarch and Spanish imperial system was through a declaration. which we swear and declare as faithful vassals o f our king and natural Lord Don Fernando VII. AGCA A1. to acknowledge receipt of Guatemala City’s letter announcing that capital’s adhesion to the monarchy. Leg. 266 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. with 110 AGI 533. nul.and for whose acclaimed name we sacrifice our lives and haciendas in defense o f him and our patria. Comayagua. The session's act was signed by Francisco Hariza.“m u ch ed u m b re or multitudes. Juan Jacinto de Herrera. Francisco San Martin. . 1813.11 1 Thus by the time that the council met on 8 October. Tegucigalpa could decide to answer that they had already completed their act of fealty to the king. Manuel Antonio Vasquez and Domingo San Martin.

Alajuela. already a kingdom capital with special privileges earned a coveted honor for its unswerving loyalty—the right to be addressed as “excellency” (tratamiento de excelencia) that put it on the same honorific level as the audiencia .Isla de Leon for the Costa Rican cities. IISAGI Guatemala 533. AGI Guatemala 534 for San Vicente. For similar reasons. The council asked for the privilege in 1815. and honorifics for capitals that already had such titles. Cortes. 24 June 1815.ll4 Deputy Francisco Morejon actively sought similar honors for Comayagua’s council and its individuals. Morejon to Regency. 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. promotions o f towns to cities.the council acknowledging receipt o f the official notification on 15 November. See note 21. 11 4 AGI Guatemala 533 and 534. . Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Carta del Cabildo de Guatemala. 8 October and 15 November 1808. 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. and Ujarras. 1 1 3 AGI Guatemala 530. The October meeting included the additional signature o f Jose Vigil. 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.112 Such loyalty received the kind o f reward that had long been awarded by the Spanish authorities. 1801-1832.115 Spanish authorities generally approved such measures. Province capital Cartago received the title o f “most noble and most loyal. After this second set o f notifications. 16 January 1813.113 Guatemala City. the town decided on 16 December to repeat the oath of loyalty on 26 December. 267 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 16 October 1813. Both the governor and bishop o f Nicaragua supported the 112 AMT. Libro de Actas Municipales.

p. the number almost doubled. See also the Gazeta del Gobiemo de Guatemaala. 47. No. and that in this period. Ayuntamiento de Masaya al Gobiemo Espanol. 18 November 1814. Sonsonate gave 5247 pesos as donativo from the mayors and alcalde mayor for war. who in 116 AGI Guatemala 533.” Jose Maria Peynado.116 When one considers that before the constitutional period. .000 pesos from that district’s indigo producers in 1812. patriotism and loyalty could pay off.request. as intendant o f San Salvador.117 Encouraged by Spanish governors. 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. there were only around a dozen operating town councils with the title o f city or villa. Consejo de Indias.7 See AGI Guatemala 533. AGI 813-814. such promotions would have had little value. In 1784. 268 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. after the Cortes had issued a decree (31 December 1811) that favored the political participation o f the region’s castas. AGI Guatemala 534. Elevation o f municipal rank communicated to near neighbors and distant capitals the importance o f the favored town. was able to report a significant collection o f 24. 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. 443. 18 March 1816. Solola gave an important donation in 1813. which originated in Masaya’s town council. towns across Central America made significant donations to the “just cause. 12 May 1814. Had community members not identified politically with their towns. for example. 1. Real Hacienda for 1784. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. it is clear that at least in terms o f hierarchical and honorific benefits.

on 13 February 1809. 13 November 1820.118 In 1813. AGI Guatemala 533. 285-293. gave an elaborate speech to Ferdinand VII. 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. Indian. the city council was not the only means that the kingdom had to demonstrate its loyalty. Chiapas’ list o f donors was published in the Guatemalan newspaper. he asked the Guatemala City town council to vouchsafe both his political loyalty and his act. ff. on the instigation o f the rector o f the University o f San Carlos. Letter o f 15 Dec. son o f the first marquis of the Kingdom o f Guatemala. Solola. 1 2 1 E l E d ito r Constitucional.12° Solola once again gave funds and in Quezaltenango. 119 AGI Guatemala 446. When the constitution was reinstated in 1820. Literary acts held to honor the deposed king could be sponsored by other institutions. pp. 120 E l E d ito r C onstitucional.that province were often mulattos. this tradition was resumed. Aycinena was Pavon’s brother-in-law. to which Juan Fermin de Aycinena. 406. Quezaltenango. In 1820.” His speech was later printed. Jose Maria Peynado. Expediente 12681.122 At the instigation o f the 11 8 AGI Guatemala 446. the “faithful inhabitants. 17 August 1812. Yet. the Indians o f the Solola district contributed through their communities the sum o f 3844 pesos.. 20. Letter o f 20 September 1814. Supplement to No.. Bernardo Pavon.119 Although there is no fully itemized list o f contributions.1 2 1 O f course. Corregidor & Intendant. Aycinena. and the progress made by the Spanish arms. While still a student. his namesake father. Spanish and Creole residents continued to contribute funds to Spain and also to the support o f local militias. A1 Leg. Dr. 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. 1813. Gabriel Garcia Ballecillos. 122 AGCA. San Salvador. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. His half- 269 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1907. alcalde mayor. like the University o f San Carlos. El Editor Constitucional. .'. declaimed an “exaltation of the throne of Ferdinand VII and the installation o f the Junta Central. when Aycinena wanted the authorities in Spain to know of his patriotism.

Padron de la Paroquia Rectoral del Sagrario de la parte del poniente. as was reported in the Gazeta de Mexico o f 1 June 1813. For family information. were funded by their own officers and troops. 270 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. and Marcial Zebadua.” Often. The four companies of Quezaltenango. determine who was eligible for citizenship. organized by the town council. Responding to numerous requests for guidance on how to hold elections. the diputacion provincial was also fulfilling its mandate. Maria Micaela Aycinena y Najera. a prominent Chiapas-bom lawyer and later legislator who represented Central America in the Court o f St. Manuel Jose Pavon y Muiioz.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.captain general. however. was married to Pavon’s brother. many towns formed volunteer militia corps called the “Volunteers o f Ferdinand VII. a wealthy Spanish merchant whose long municipal career was continued by his sons. later a member o f the city council (1820-1838) and a distinguished jurist in both federal and state governments. Gregorio Urruela. . 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. formado pr el Cura encargado Jose Mariano Dominguez en el afio del Sr de 1829. thanks to Christophe Belaubre and the census o f 1829. it was the city council that took on the task o f recruitment. and served with honor in four actions against the Morelos insurgents in Oaxaca and Tehuantepec in 1813. located at the AHAG to which he pointed me. James (London) in 1826 before returning to serve as minister of foreign affairs in several Central American governments. and many cabildantes became officers and soldiers in these new corps. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and other fine points regarding sister.

127 E l E ditor C onstit. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42. it also asked the archbishop to distribute the circular to priests and urge them to help accomplish this task. 29 November and 6 December 1820... It was also the diputacion that drew the governor’s attention to Article 17. The names and information about the four companies can be found in the Gazeta deG uatem ala nos. . 27 November 1820. 23 April 1821. pp. Letter o f 20 September 1814. 517. p. 16 and 23 April to implement the Constitution kept the sessions occupied. 9 April 1821. Pt. No. Chapter 3 o f the regulation that the DP should receive copies o f all laws and decrees of the government. 241 and 265.534-535. No. questions o f greater instance also crossed its threshold.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 each—putting Guatemala lawyer and cabildante Alejandro Diaz Cabeza de Vaca in charge. 6 and 9 December 1820. 44. DP. 2. Jose Matias Delgado. V. 271 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. a San 1 2 3 AGI Guatemala S33. 2. p. with election season approaching. Sessions 10 and 11. Sessions 12& 13. the diputacion determined to send the dossier for an opinion to the archbishop o f Guatemala.126 In November 1820. 226.127 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. DP. No 44. 43 and 44. Point 2. After receiving the case in session 10. 533. the ecclesiastic council o f San Salvador sought the D P’s intervention to promote its demand for a bishopric for that province in 1820. 2. 529 and 534. For example. the diputacion prepared a circular to all the governors and judges to ensure the creation and functioning o f constitutional councils where required. DP Session. p. V.124 However. 124 E l E dito r C onstitucional. No. This politically delicate point was brought to the DP’s attention by one o f its members. the criterion demanded by the Constitution. V. 126 E l E d ito r C onstit. leading to a gubernatorial order for his secretary to forward them. 2. 125 E l E dito r C onstitucional. Ayuntamiento de Quezaltenango. 23 April 1821. Session o f 6 Decmeber 1820.

others originated in Choluteca. and was resolved using an article o f a decree dated subsequent to the constitution. Session 7. . for a second time. the return o f the Constitutional system found many o f the same individuals throwing themselves wholeheartedly. it was clear that the body had established itself as the legitimate arbiter o f the constitutional laws applied to the kingdom’s communities. By 1820. Omoa and Trujillo (Honduras) and even in San Miguel (El Salvador). and the new constitutional mayors and councils.Salvador cleric who had long-resisted centralized authority in Guatemala. and the diputacion agreed to continue to use the voting schema prepared by the kingdom’s preparatory junta until the new “provincial distribution” was completed. Thus. Corpus. individuals seeking payment for services rendered the state. As before. activity and responsibilities o f the ayuntamientos constitucionales. 23 Nov. governors. and specifically to those laws relating to the behavior. the DP also appeared to have the respect and interest o f the multi-province district it served. for all the agitation by provincial capitals to establish their independent diputaciones. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1820. Although many of the consultas came from the areas immediately surrounding Guatemala. with the experience of the early years of 128 El Editor Constitucional. 272 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. However. and town councils—worked constructively with the extant bodies to resolve disputes with constitutional overtones. The captain general broke the tie. p 496. into the more representative form o f government. From the consultation (consultas) initiated by Spanish authorities. 2. the organized countryside—priests. Diputacion Provincial de Guatemala. and not just the capital city it worked in. The indexes o f the sessions o f the 1820 diputacion provincial o f Guatemala are published in El Editor Constitucional. Pt. 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 intendancies o f San Salvador. By March 1821. In the intendancies. the diputacion observed that the territories under its jurisdiction were composed o f three gobiernos subaltemos. their immediate chiefs on all matters but justice—which went to the audiencia—were the intendants. The motivation came in order to answer numerous requests by town councils across its jurisdiction (Solola. and between the new type of division o f powers not by territory but by the type o f power exercised . In its lengthy and reasoned analysis.partial implementation and challenges o f innovation. 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 diputacion felt it necessary to issue a determination on how the tasks o f governors and town councils were related. . Further reproduction prohibited without permission.judicial. The diputacion provincial o f Guatemala by 1820-1821 was acting much as an independent legislative body.only 4 deputies and the captain general—was not intended to function in this way. Under the Constitution. Comitan. although its limited membership . Ciudad Real (Chiapas) and Comayagua. the regulation of intendants had divided territory into districts (partidos ) governed by subdelegates (subdelegados) with powers injustice. the politically active elite were now in a position to detail the areas that remained for improvement within the Spanish constitutional order. the 273 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. San Salvador. economic or political. administration (policia). and 11 alcaldias mayores and corregimientos. 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. and war. finance. In its analysis. Tuxtla) to distinguish between the old and new officials.

The constitution and the Instruction of 23 June 1813 both were specific in laying out how to divide political and economic administration. as it depended on the division o f powers. This note informed that the subaltern governor. were responsible for circulation all government orders throughout the district. diputaciones and captains general (jefes politicos superiores). Oficio a los Intendentes y Alcaldes Constitucionales. To back up this argument.” According to the diputacion. the first mayor o f cabezas de partido 274 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 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. government remained concentrated in the hands o f the city councils. the system adopted was “entirely distinct. and that o f 9 October 1812 limited justice to a function o f constitutional councils. governors (jefes politicos subaltemos).diputacion continued. The diputacion concluded as follows: 129 Documentos Historicos. 50-51. the Constitution did not reduce the responsibility o f the city within government. the mayor o f a district capital would preside the electoral councils (juntas electorales) in the absence o f the governor. the desired separation could not be achieved if governors continued to have a role in the execution o f justice. pp. . In other words. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and if judges continued to have a role in the administration of government. 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. and in his absence. 18 May 1820. and that it was the ayuntamientos that would in fact publish such orders129 Furthermore.

[T]he government. conoceran de lo gubemativo. which reads as follows.. therefore. corregidores. Law o f 9 October 1813. in timely fashion “to the rest o f their territory.they do not have competence in the exercise of the faculties designated by a law made and published expressly to serve as a norm.1 3 1 In other words. to argue that once the ayuntamientos constitucionales took office. based on a royal order of 25 June 1805. 1 3 1 The diputacion quoted a p ro vid en cia of the Supremo Gobiemo of 1 March 1806.(T]t would be an error o f the greatest transcendence to maintain that . . Further reproduction prohibited without permission. with absolute inhibition o f the jueces de letras and subdelegados o f Ultramar. 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. and that these territories belonged to the intendancy o f the capital (Guatemala City). that all subdelegados. “The mayors. will undertake (conocerdn ) the government.” Article 5. o f each pueblo is clearly confided to its mayors and ayuntamiento constitucional. This commitment to the city derived in part from tradition. economico y de policia de los pueblos respectivos. 130 “Los alcaldes.. less than a year before Central America’s independence was to be decided in a referendum held in over 200 ayuntamientos constitucionales located the length and breadth o f the isthmus. . 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. as the Instructions drafted in 1810 were to circulate orders. y subdelegados de Ultramar. the commitment to centering political authority in city councils remained firmly embedded in the minds and actions of the kingdom’s elite lawmakers.. economy and administration o f their respective pueblos. The sources determined that Article 12 o f the provisions regarding subdelegados applied to the corregidores and a lca ld es m ayores .” for immediate circulation to the other town councils in their district (p a rtid o ). and a decision based on a royal order o f 1805. con absoluta inhibicion de los jueces de letras. It also cited Article 5 o f the law o f 9 October. 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. including copies o f im presos. 275 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner."130 The diputacion used this article.

And when. on the one hand. If. it would be impossible to ignore the cities that had been set at the center o f the Spanish constitutional system.for by Guatemala City’s Creole aldermen show. then. When the siren call o f independence finally received a positive answer from the Kingdom o f Guatemala in the fall o f 1821. elites had experienced government in the Cortes. The castas and some Indians had also had the chance to work in government in these years. it also stemmed from interpretation of the developing bodies o f law emerging from the Cortes in Spain. with provincial organization inadequate to the task. a new body such as the diputacion provincial was set up to work on regional issues. and the form of government that would work for both. During the Constitutional years in Central America. when it came time to develop a blueprint for independent government. and in the ayuntamientos constitucionales. Yet. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a few years later. and more members o f society could serve in official capacity in city councils. More members o f society on both sides o f the Atlantic engaged regularly in the selection o f local authorities. . whose numbers had multiplied at least tenfold under the Constitution. it was thus the muscular cities that responded definitively in almost all instances. as well as in the administrative and gubernatorial positions they had often filled. and city councils remained the well from which city councilors would select new authorities. Citizenship was still bound to cities. as seen in the Instruction prepared by the Junta Preparativa in 1812. 276 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. but the familiar tension between provincial districts and cities. in the diputaciones provinciales. its deputies were still selected by the principal towns and cities o f their region. such as the judges on freedom o f the press issues. was still present.

debated the political future of the former kingdom. and no legitimate power had caused them to be reborn. news of Mexico’s declaration o f independence from Spain reached the Kingdom o f Guatemala. 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. nor dependence o f the provinces on their former capital. there was no kingdom in Guatemala. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. . 1821-1823 The hotheads (exaltados) [of Guatemala] founded the anarchic dogma that the pueblos. 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. During the period o f the Mexican Empire. Natural Liberty. on becoming independent from Spain. In this brief. chaotic two-year period alliances were made and broken which would 277 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. and with the fall o f [the empire]. for the colonial ties had been entirely broken.Chapter 6 Anarchic Dogma. This interregnum was city government’s finest and worst moment. Memorias para la historia de la Revolucion de Centro-america (1832). but many fractions dislocated with no center o f unity. precipitating that colony’s independence and unleashing a crisis o f government. Manuel Montufar y Coronado. In the two-year interregnum that followed. recovered their natural liberty and were free to form new societies according to their convenience in the new order o f things. New Societies: The Central American Municipality in Independence. our pueblos did not present the aspect o f a kingdom ruled by a unitary government. Otras Reflexiones sobre Reforma Politico en Centro-America (1833) In September 1821. Mariano Aycinena. Central America’s towns and cities governed in the countryside.

the nature o f that desired change varied from place to place. 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. bishops and governors to low-level Spanish bureaucrats. Yet by examining the terms o f those declarations— including whether the independence sought was from Spain. 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. local clerics and military men—city councils deliberated and decided their future.1). tenuously. either on its own or jointly with a diputacion provincial. . open and closed sessions o f city councils discussed options available. provincial and intendancy capitals declared independence as news moved from north to south in September and October 1821 (See Table 6. Whichever groups were represented in the discussions. the city council issued the declaration. between 1825 and 1839. As news o f Mexico’s decision reached city and village. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Each provincial capital. In what at first glance appears to be a domino effect. With the other authorities present in each town—ranging from diputaciones provinciates. one by one. Mexico or Guatemala— it becomes clear that while the elites o f each community favored political change. and its satellite villas took decisions not simply about the terms of independence 278 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.determine the effective political boundaries between the states that emerged to join the Central American Federation that existed.

Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Thus. this date does not represent the date when a united group of deputies representing all o f the former Kingdom o f Guatemala’s provinces officially opted for independence. government and commerce in Guatemala City. 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. . it does not even represent the first such declaration.from Spain. In fact. while Central American governments have celebrated the 15th o f September as their date of independence since 1821. 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 government—there was discord on what the next step would be. 279 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.

Tot. DP. Pueblo CC.21 September IS September 25 September 28 September 28 September 28 September? October 4 October 4 October 11. Gvr-Govemor. M-Military CC DP (Acta Leon) Gvr. Spain. Com. M CC.Table 6. Guate. Mx Mexico Mexico Mexico Guatemala CC CC CC CC CC CC CC. Ch. Ch. Central America. of other towns CC. public CC-Cabildo abierto CC-poll Mx. M. From Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Guate. Ch.Gvr. Ch. vecinos CC. w. Gvr. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.8 Sept 14. reps. Guate. San Jose. B CC Cartago.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 I Actors CC-City Council CC. . DP. Guate. Cueyagua — Honduras Granada Nicaragua Masaya Nicaragua Leon Nicaragua Heredia Costa Rica Cartago Costa Rica Ciudad Real Chiapas Cartago. CC. DP CC. Junta Gbno CC CC-Cabildo abierto CC-Cabildo abierto CC CC Decision Indep. Spain Spain. Mx Spain Spain Spain *p Spain *p Spain *p Joins: Mexico Mexico Leon Nicaragua Tegucigalpa Honduras Gracias. Gu Let Junta decide Mexico 280 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.CA Mexico Mexico Mex. Gvr. Ind. 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. *p Spain. M. Gvr CC CC CC. Los Llanos. Gvr. 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. Ch-Church CC. Ch. Hac. Mexico Abs.1: Selected Declarations of Independence. Mx Spain.

February 18 Abbreviations: Un-Union. Comitan’s syndics. the intendant o f Chiapas.Rep.) 1822 Trujillo Honduras CC Spain. the council wrote to announce their admittedly limited decision to the Mexican general leading the independence movement. when it arrives. proposed a cabildo abierto to discuss how to respond.1: Selected Declarations of Independence.1 Decision in hand. In vencion Criolla. . Further reproduction prohibited without permission. p. Filisola. H istoria de E l Salvador-.” The city council signed the declaration.Table 6. Hac-Hacienda Sources: Monterey. Gvr? Mexico January Sonsonate — El Salvador San Jose Costa Rica Ind. Agustin de Iturbide. independence. noting the advance o f the Mexican army and fearing its immediate arrival. The first cities on the mail circuit to receive and react to news o f Mexico’s final independence from Spain and an invitation to join the new Mexican Empire were the three municipalities of Chiapas: Ciudad Real. 4. Ch. In a defensive reaction. Indep-Independence. Comitan. so that the superior force. On 28 September. shall do no violence or harm. but from one o f its smaller towns. pp. twentyeight residents voted to put the town “and its district (comprehension)” under the protection of “the new government. Santa Ana. Ch. Setting a precedent for municipal reaction. Melendez. La In d ep en d en cia d e C hiapas. Taracena. . Juan 281 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 7. Rodriguez.92. 4. The Cadiz E x p e rim e n t in C entral America. Independencia d e C entroam erica. as it indubitably will. Ch. DP-Diputacion Provincial. declaring. the first official declaration came not from the province capital. Mx Guatemala January Cartago Costa Rica January 22 CC Mexico San Salvador CC. Jta Cslt. 1821-1822 (cont. 186-199. Tuxtla and Comitan. Central America. La C ooperacion d e Mexico-. leaving the rest o f the appropriate steps for the Jefe Superior o f this Kingdom. San Miguel. CC. which declared their independence from Spain in late August and early September. Ciudad Real. if [the Mexican government] wills.Gvr El Salvador January 11 Guate. Juan & Gamboa.

282 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. the capital o f Chiapas— representatives o f the traditional institutions—met in a cabildo abierto to determine the community’s official reaction. the Ciudad Real authorities took an oath (juramento) o f independence on 8 Sepetember. only representatives o f elite institutions officially deliberated the political possibilities. 2 See General Manuel Mier y Teran to Agustin de Iturbide. 1994). Ciudad Real Chiapas. La Independencia y la A n exio n C entroam ericana a M exico (Guatemala: Serviprensa. This letter is reprinted in Jorge Lujan Munoz. La independencia d e C hiapas y su s a n exio n es a M exico (1821-1824) (Tuxtla Gutierrez (Chiapas. o f Guatemalan origin. and the other ayuntamientos o f the intendancy. pp. as in most o f those that followed. A week later. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ciudad Real.2 The city councils o f Tuxtla and Comitan followed suit with official declarations o f independence days later. drew from mechanisms o f the colonial period and the Spanish constitutional monarchy to respond to the momentous political news. only now. Mexico. In short order. 283-284. Having reached a decision. 1982). In this case. The Ciudad Real authorities. with artisans’ groups and other popular groups kept at the margins o f debate. . pp. they declared their “Capital and 1“Acta de independencia de Comitan" in Jesus Aquino Juan and Arturo Corzo Gamboa. town council and bishop o f Ciudad Real. for a discusion o f Chiapas' economic and political ties to Mexico. 24 October 1821. Mexico): Universidad Autonoma. 163-166. considering their shared border and commercial ties with Veracruz. much as they had taken an oath o f loyalty to kings and to the Spanish constitution in earlier periods. a small town had opened the floodgates that unleashed the process o f independence in Central America. The governor. Appendix 1. rapidly determined to adhere to the Mexican decision.Nepomuceno Batres.

was in fact the date o f the oath taken to protect independence. even in the face o f the decision o f the new viceroy o f Mexico to accept his territory’s secession from the Spanish Empire. without feeling constrained to wait for guidance or approval either from the colony capital or from a preponderance o f the colony’s town and provincial governments.its great province o f las Chiapas" independent. governors.3 These procedures would repeat in town after town in the Central American isthmus over the next two months. and that the city council’s act was on 3 Sept 1821. Furthermore. 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. provincial authorities or royal officials o f Central America draw attention to these facts. Although the ceremonies followed by Chiapas were traditional in nature. Although a province within a kingdom. 8 September. the people could reassume popular sovereignty and the right to 3 See Juan and Gamboa. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The duly-constituted authorities o f Chiapas felt they had the authority to make a momentous decision on their own. . They claim that the official date of the declaration. Instead. for their communities alone. for discusion of Ciudad Real’s independence. By breaking the “social compact” with the Spanish king. Chiapas’ declaration. Chiapas and its local governors were not technically empowered to take political decisions o f this magnitude. Chapter 4. their content was nonetheless remarkable. Yet at no point did any o f the other cities. 283 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. the royally-appointed governor and bureaucrats assigned to Chiapas ought to have opposed rather than facilitated the declaration of independence. Historians have agreed that Scholastic thought provides the political foundations for this type o f extremely local political judgment. La independencia de Chiapas y sus anexiones a Mexico.

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. Secondly. all other compacts were voluntary alliances. on becoming independent from Spain. 1979) and Xiomara Avendafio Rojas. Arturo Taracena suggests that each “pueblo” meant. Mexico (DF). Firstly. but also the Spanish officials they kept in government posts.” Contemporaries certainly used this language. 1810-1840 .make political decisions because they had resumed their “natural liberty. p. “Procesos Electorates y Clase Politica en la Federacion de Centroamerica. each town to withdraw from the Spanish empire reflected a specific form o f understanding o f the “people” involved. Modem scholars reiterating this analysis for Latin America and Central America. had recovered their natural liberty. “each principal city with its territory and dependent pueblos. 50. . Carlos Stoetzer. respectively. Nonetheless. and were free to form new socities according to their convenience in the new order o f things. wrote that the most enthusiastic proponents of independence in Guatemala “founded the anarchic dogma that the pueblos. The Scholastic Roots o f the Spanish A m erican R evolutions (New York: Fordham University Press. M em orias p a ra la historia de la R evolucion d e Centro-america. Yet the implications o f the particular and narrow interpretations of the compact are still worth underlining. implying that the smaller towns had no voice in the decision. 1934). 4 Manuel Montufar y Coronado. histories o f this period have analyzed only the decisions of the cabeceras.” Montufar. by limiting the “people” in each instance to those o f one town. include O. independence-minded Central American elites included in this community not just the native-born and immigrants who had taken up permanent residence.” unpublished doctoral dissertation. (Guatemala: Tipografia Sanchez y De Guise. 1994. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in fact. Furthermore. Colegio de Mexico. Chapter 2.iis” o f medieval Spanish thought. the larger municipal district familiar from earlier periods. one of the earliest chroniclers o f independent Central America." Chiapas’ coordination o f the declarations o f each important town certainly support such a thesis.4 Popular sovereignty implied local. that 284 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Stoetzer argues that the “pactum translatic. municipal authority.

Guatemala City received and considered these letters on 14 September 1821. (Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Economica. Exp. Book 2. After swearing independence. provincial towns sought guidance from the capital on the implementation is. they had sworn independence from Spain. was what shaped nineteenth-century Spanish American political decision-making. M o d e m id a d e Independencia. Ensayos so b re la s revoluciones hispanoam ericanos. . 15748. Ciudad Real’s exhortation o f other cabildos. 2194. represents the first example of a provincial capital taking the lead not to seek the capital’s advice on a political matter but to attempt to influence through example. 1997). Traditionally. Others who have picked up the pactist argument include Franijois-Xavier Guerra.44 Leg. 5 AGCA A 1. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. rather than the recipient of news from the capital.”5 While correspondence between town councils had long served as a means o f exchange o f information. P esadilla Indigena: Los A lto s d e G uatem ala. ff. the return o f political power to the people when the contract with the king has been broken. 285 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1821. Invencidn Criolla. 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. 1740-1850 (Antigua. 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.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. Sueno L adino. 1992). 67. p. d e region a E stado. Guatemala: CIRMA. in particular the kingdom capital Guatemala City. September 14 1821. The letters stated that due to a “general accord” o f all the vecinos. and Arturo Taracena Arriola. 23v-24. Chapter 9. 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 Mexico’s independence. and would preserve their religions. and enclosed a certification from the town o f Comitan to demonstrate the unity o f the province’s three cabildos. Actas de Cabildo.

44 Legajo 2194. A quick decision had to be reached. 7 AGCA A 1. 72.” the council decided simply to act to preserve public order. 1821. but demonstrated the means used to achieve it and explained the legal and social bases on which that independence was meant to rest. September 4.44 Legajo 2194. saw that independence was likely at this point. 14 Sept. and the city council had already attempted to convince the captain general to support independence on September 4. Sess. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.7 Popular attention to the issue was also increasing.44. para. The city council recorded an increase in political broadsides and petty crime associated with Mexico’s upheaval since August. The syndic. 1821. Thus. Actas de Cabildo. Actas de Cabildo. informed Gainza that "general opinion of this capital” favored independence. and that the petition sought Gainza’s support for the decision to avoid a “popular commotion. Actas de Cabildo. 72. Legajo 2194. 2. f.44. on September 13. one of its “principal attributions. 21 May 1821. the Guatemala City council opened and considered the Ciudad Real and Tuxtla city council letters. asking for news o f events in Mexico and guidance on preparing instructions to the Santa Ana deputy to Spain’s Cortes o f 1822-1823. He thus convoked the same kind o f cabildo 6 AGCA A 1. by the time the mail reached Guatemala City. . Expediente 15748.o f regulations or other administrative matters. 9 AGCA A 1. 23v-24. 6. Actas de Cabildo. Expediente 15748. 15748. Mariano Aycinena. 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.8 In a session o f September 14. with or without his participation.9 Before the city council could act in response to this extraordinary news. Book 2. 1821. 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). ff. 286 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. in receipt o f the same letters. f. 1821.6 Here Chiapas had not only informed its neighbors o f its independence. Book 2. ff. Exp." 8 AGCA A 1. The council determined in future to take action to fulfill its obligation to assure order and security. Captain General Gabino Gainza. A more traditional letter is that o f Santa Ana to Guatemala City in May 1821. the capital was required to react rather than lead. 119v-120. 17. Expediente 15748. pa 5. 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. 1821. 1821." After a discussion characterized as “attentive and mature. September 31. Legajo 2194. 1821. pa.

abierto that had already taken place in Chiapas for the following day in hopes o f achieving a similar consensual decision. and once again. 1821. 287 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.10 10 AGCA A 1. lawyer’s college. Clearly. Only a negotiated and joint solution appealed. Exp. two aldermen and the two syndics. 14 September 1821. he instead called together two representatives each for the principal authorities o f the kingdom—the archbishop and ecclesiastical council. and the timing was propitious to achieve one. Actas de Cabildo. . in order to seat a greater number o f members o f the city council. Book 2. to send a delegation composed o f one mayor. 15748. as all members were dulyelected representatives o f the city. The number o f colonial corporations. elites did not evince an appetite to take on Spanish authorities to achieve independence. the diputacion provincial. the audiencia. Only one exception was made. the cabildo agreed.44 Legajo 2184. was significantly greater in the capital. Spanish authorities failed to present stiff resistance to inclusion in the organization and implementation o f independence. After consultation with Gainza. On September 15. there were certain distinctions both in form and content o f the meeting that reflected this particular city’s role as kingdom capital. ff. merchants’ guild. 23v. or official institutions. Although the overall strategy o f the Guatemala City leadership paralleled that o f Chiapas. Thus. although with five rather than two members in attendance. which at first insisted on sending the entire body. Gainza could not include each individual member o f each institution in the deliberations. in Guatemala City as in Chiapas. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and ranking military and finance officials—to ponder the question o f how to respond to the news. on the same partial footing as the other institutions. in the end.

but the entire collection o f provinces that had made up the Kingdom of Guatemala. to indicate not only the willingness o f the capital to share political power with provincial representatives. preferring to send a delegate directly to Mexico. Solola and Chimaltenango. Textos F undam entales de la Independencia C entroam ericana (San Jose: Editorial Universitaria. so the JPC immediately inducted representatives for Guatemala’s interior provinces. Art. Lawyers Jose Cecilio del Valle. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. respectively. Gainza and the cabildo abierto determined to make the Diputacion Provincial (DP) a governing body. and to anchor whatever polity should emerge. . 242-245. Declaration o f Independence. 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. Lawyer Antonio Robles. represented that province. 1971). notably. Guatemala City. the distinguished provincianos selected for the JPC were men who had made their careers in the kingdom capital. o f Tegucigalpa. 15 September 1821. 288 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. but to underline Guatemala’s intent to hold together the territory o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala. Under the Spanish system. pp. and Sonsonate. The g o b ie m o of Costa Rica. represented Honduras and Miguel de Larreinaga. rather than elected representatives of the provinces. represented his native province. an o id o r of the audiencia bom in Nicaragua. and for Nicaragua. reprinted in Carlos Melendez. a Chiapasbom mayor of the Guatemala City municipal council. ed. and Honduras.8. and Angel Maria Candina—represented Quezaltenango.11 Although only Chiapas official repudiated its new representative. Three clerics—the Marques of Aycinena. did not merit a representative. Named in the declaration of independence. Chiapas. or the united towns o f one province.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. Jose Valdes.. the Junta Provisional Consultiva (JPC). this DP had represented only Guatemala and El Salvador.

Pedro Solorzano. 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. Similarly. Textos Fundamentales. Expediente 15748. ed. AGN. 60. and other authorities. who help them in their patrols to keep quiet and public tranquility.. Seccion Colonial.44 Legajo 2194. 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. 289 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Guatemala). Antigua. 1 3 Full text o f the Bando of 17 September 1821 can be found in Melendez. Actas de Cabildo. By 29 September. city councils continued to manage the minutiae o f municipal administration. the cabildo of Chiapas had issued instructions to its deputy to Mexico. Procesos Electorates. using the title o f jefepolitico superior accorded to him under the Spanish Constitution. Libro de Actas. 1820-1821. aldermen. no other change in political organization followed. Archivo Municipal (Antigua. The relative points are treated in Articles 2 and 10. For the balance o f 1821. Antigua. Carpeta 4. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the council in fact carried out this role. and those in authority retained their central role as guarantor o f public order. Sonsonate. as well as to the Aldermen.” 1 3 As city council books from Guatemala City. Guatemala City.junta was called into question by the other DPs operating in the Kingdom o f Guatemala in 1821. Captain General Gainza retained his position as interim political and military leader. independence did not mean elections of new city councils. 1821. and Sonsonate show. 252-254. 1821. Libro de Actas. pp. and agents that they had elected or named at the beginning o f the year. Caja 1. All laws.1 4 1 2 Avendano. p. and the Spanish colonial bureaucracy remained in place. as we shall see below. 1 4 AGCA A1. staffed by the same mayors.1 2 As in Chiapas. .

when he resigned to accept a royal appointment as war auditor (auditor de guerra). . Actas de Cabildo. this declaration was signed only by the political authorities recognized as representative o f the people: Gainza. In contrast. former mayor of Guatemala City.2. 1821. and the individuals of the city council. Although all o f the colonial institutions were represented in the debate on the political future o f Guatemala and Central America. 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. Jose Cecilio del Valle—a native o f Honduras. Within 24 hours. Further. urging the capital to proclaim and swear its independence. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. long-time official in Guatemala’s Spanish bureaucracy. the Guatemala City declaration o f independence had been agreed “by this Provincial Deputation and the individuals o f the excellent Ayuntamiento. newspaper editor. the members o f the JPC. Exp. 15748. AGCA." and thus could claim broader representation. .The Guatemalan decision in favor o f independence also required dissemination. Just as the junta set up in Guatemala City pretended to kingdom-wide authority. Royal officials could not sit on the city council (see Chapter 2). 1821. the undertone o f the arguments reflected the participants’ sense that the decision being made by the two legitimate native political institutions—capital city and provincial deputation—would 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.2.” this city had spoken only for its district and presented no program to coordinate what would follow. Whereas Ciudad Real o f Chiapas had written to Guatemala. A 1. Legajo 2194. 290 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. and statesman15—composed Central America’s second declaration o f independence.” meaning the Kingdom o f Guatemala.. and “ other town councils.

Guatemala City. pp. that is. Jose Antonio de Larrave.000 individuals “without excluding from citizenship those o f African origin. to continue in effect in the interim period. The act was signed by [captain general] Gabino Gainza. These ground rules ranged from presuming a united political future for the territory. Antonio de Rivera. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Jose Domingo Dieguez. Textos Fundamentales. proposed a plan that would ensure a properlyorganized independence. The long-desired inclusion o f the castas within the electoral body was authorized. 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. Ysidoro del Valle y Castriciones. the Guatemalan declaration. The fourth article modified the electoral rules to call for one deputy for each 15. selecting the electoral system to be used and even which ethnic groups to include as part o f the citizenry.subsequent political decisions. Only one change was made. and city council secretary Lorenzo de Romaha. in the case that it is agreed upon. Mariano de Aycinena. Manuel Antonio de Molina. Rather than seconding the Chiapas exhortation to each city to meet and act individually. 291 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1822.. Mariano de Beltranena.” The meeting was set for March 1. 15 September 1821."16 1 6 Act o f Independence. in its second article. Full text o f the Declaration of Independence can be found in Melendez. The third article indicated that Guatemala City expected the current legal system. 242-245. the form o f government and fundamental law that should rule. Jose Matias Delgado. a date that would permit ample time for both elections o f representatives and travel to the capital for even the most distant districts. Pedro de Arroyave. ed. Jose Mariano Calderon. the Spanish Constitution o f 1812 and subsequent legislation of the Spanish Cortes. This article called for application o f the Spanish constitutional electoral rules to the election o f representatives to the Guatemalan assembly. .

if independence was determined. ed. the only measure the “national ayuntamiento” took in addition to holding the individual oaths of loyalty to the new government.The Guatemala City declaration o f independence appears. with 50 going to the capital and 150 to pay for festivities in Antigua. 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. rather than the sealed paper that reflected “dependency on Spanish domination. to fix the form of government and fundamental laws that would replace the former Spanish system. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and called on the rest o f the kingdom to participate in a congress to determine if. met on September 19 to discuss the separate receipt o f the declaration from Gainza and the Guatemala City council. from the distance o f almost two hundred years.”17 The moderation won a favorable response from some o f the nearer cities and provinces. Antigua’s councilmen allocated 200 pesos to celebrate independence. the city council established in 1799 in the former colonial capital. The declaration o f September 15 simply informed of Chiapas’ and Guatemala City’s votes for independence. in fact. The ayuntamiento o f Antigua Guatemala. the whole would become independent from Spain and. was to begin a new book o f acts using common paper. for it neither specified a political future for the entire colony nor suggested a form o f government.. In four brief paragraphs. pp. 226-230. Textos Fundamentales. 292 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Until such a congress could convene. They then agreed to preside over the proceedings in their blue and white uniforms. . to be a moderate document.

acknowledging receipt o f new legislation—as if no further consideration o f independence was necessary. San Salvador had erected a 1 8 Archivo Municipal (Antigua. be faithful to the American monarchy. This public act was followed immediately. San Salvador. Para. and to observe the government it establishes and the laws that are sanctioned.” 1fi In its next meeting. Jose Rosi. Full text in found in Melendez.19 Although by January o f 1822. ed. Millan Bustos. Libro de Actas. Santiago Rosi. vicar and parish priests. at the intendant’s insistence. the Antigua council resumed administration o f the items that usually appeared on the municipal agenda—running the meat and city markets. alongside officials o f the Spanish and colonial bureaucracy. 53. Loyal and apparently unperturbed by such a momentous decision. intendant Pedro Barriere and alcalde primero Casimiro Garcia Valdeavellano. At 9 p.. Manuel Mendoza. the cabildantes o f Antigua represented for the Guatemala City elites an ideal collaborator. 4. Juan Bautista Otondo.” The city council took its oath the following day. Geronimo Ajuria. 1821. convoked the ayuntamiento. Francisco Ximenez and Romero. and the cabildo: Casimiro Garcia Valdeavellano and Jose Ignacio Zaldana. Guatemala). Even more troublesome districts seemed to accept the conditions suggested by the capital. .m. 1 9 Act o f Independence. pp. repairing a failing water system. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Textos Fundamentales. on 21 September. The councilors present on this occasion were: Mayors Tomas Arroyave and Juan de Dios Menendez. 293 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. aldermen Joaquin Ferrer. Francisco Ignacio de Urrutia. Francisco Del Duque. Marcos Morales. Signed: Barriere. the pueblo was to make its official oath a week later. improving care o f prisoners. Trinidad Estupinian. that the mayor receive his oath o f loyalty to “guard and protect independence. and Narciso Ortega. 266-268. 21 September 1821. and Syndics Miguel Galvez and Mariano Fernandez.” As in Guatemala and Chiapas. military leaders. San Salvador received the news o f “our independence and liberty. f.votes with theirs. and befitting a provincial capital. 19 September 1821. and “all classes o f vecinos principales" to a general ceremony o f rejoicing and a te deum celebrated in the parish church.

38 and 99.breakaway diputacion provincial and had “totally separated” from the government in Guatemala City in opposition to that city’s decision to declare for Mexico as well as to promote its own ardently-desired bishopric. on 23 October. economic or military conflict based on either adhesion or opposition to the local cabecera. supporting independence. no 323. Only in one instance did a city council find the need to discuss a rejection o f its position. 23 October. 2 1 For example. 75. it simply added them to a 20 ANH. p. 44. 1821. Fondo DP. In this decision. the provincial and district cabeceras o f the provinces o f Quezaltenango. intendant and ju n ta consultiva. Sonsonate. Sessions 89. erected itself in a ju n ta p ro visio n a l g u b e m a tiva . Comayagua. Caja 165. Gotera. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. capital o f a breakaway Honduran province. 3 November. and Monterey. letters arrived from Metapan.20 Equally encouraging for the capital must have been the receipt o f over 30 letters from ayuntamientos constitucionales small and large. A trend that emerged in the pattern o f responses. Mixco. San Salvador. San Salvador argued that the ju n ta o f Guatemala had thus ceased to exist. foreshadowed the process in which smaller towns would commit to one side or another in a political. and on 3 November letters from Gotera. Chiapas and Cartago were taking active part in this decision making. however. AGCA. Not just the five capitals o f Leon. Gotera. Comayagua. rather than respond to each letter. Chimaltenango. Actas de Cabildo. p. Gracias and Danli.21 Since the Guatemala City council had no official role to play. Olocuilta. the initial declaration of independence did not test the ties that bound San Salvador to Guatemala. remitted letters with Danli. . and Santa Catarina Mita. 22 January 1822. and Santa Catarina Mita. 294 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. In most cases. Tegucigalpa. Similarly. Tegucigalpa. Gabino Gainza al Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. and Nicaragua did so as well. from as far away as Nicaragua. and Chalatenango. Honduran capital Comayagua's letters accompanied cabildo letters from Llanos de Santa Rosa. 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. p. and declared itself politically and economically independent o f Guatemala. San Salvador. the respondents offered their support for Guatemala City. Olocuilta. H istoria d e E l S a lvador .

4. One aspect o f the seemingly moderate Guatemalan declaration was particularly ill-received. and Chiapas and Comayagua.file it was organizing. and Santa Ana in the province o f San Salvador. and.2 shows. and a foreshadowing o f divisions to come as principal cities within each province sought to change their political affiliations or status. para. As Table 6. 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 San Vicente had all sworn independence. p. The move in Guatemala City to “ Between 27 September. By the middle o f the month. 30v. pa 4. 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. with the exception o f Leon. Quaginiquilapa. by August 1821. the first meeting held by the Guatemala City ayuntamiento after the declaration o f independence. Only an offer o f arms made by the villa o f San Vicente in San Salvador province received a letter o f thanks. Quezaltenango (Session 77. it seemed as if the cities and towns o f Central America not only had the official responsibility to make momentous decisions. and Antigua Guatemala in that o f Guatemala. San Antonio. Further south. approved by the Spanish Cortes o f 1812 and 1820 respectively. then. By early October. 27 September. San Vicente. Leon (Nicaragua). 16 October. Zacatecoluca. 35v-6) San Vicente offered arms to the capital. unfortunately. had informed o f their proclamations of independence (Session 82 and 84. This initial impression. 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. Mataquesquinta. San Salvador. 5 and 8? October. p.22 In the first few weeks o f independence. Huehuetenango. San Miguel. Pueblo de la Concepcion. diputaciones provinciates (DP’s) already operated in the provinces o f Leon. 24v) initially sought to determine whether or not Guatemala had declared independence. and 4 November. but also the maturity and strength to do so without provoking disintegration o f political authority and disruption o f the social order. and later sought to separate from its political dependence on the capital city. union with Guatemala City (Session 82. 295 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. San Andres. Chimaltenango. San Marcos de Mazatenango. and Sonsonate. . 32). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. pa 2 and 7.

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.


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table 6.2: Juntas Gubernativas, Central America, 1821-1823
City Guatemala City Chiapas Comayagua

Guatemala Chiapas Honduras

•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 el’n; 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 council’s decision, Tinoco convoked the familiar complement o f local authorities— the city council, the provincial deputation, and other religious and royal officials—to 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 Tinoco’s 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.


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The declaration stated that Comayagua would become subject only to the Superior Government established in its place for “America Septentrional”—a territory defined by the Spanish Constitution o f 1812 as Mexico, Guatemala and Spain’s 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, Comayagua’s 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, Leon’s 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, Leon’s 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.


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

legality of this independence, that it was using faculties granted by the laws o f Spain but had not passed these limits.27 Guatemala’s 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 Guatemala’s 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 City’s 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 Leon’s 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 [Guatemala’s 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 [Leon’s] 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.”


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

(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 capital—the 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, Tegucigalpa’s 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.


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the Guatemalan and Chiapas decisions; the four principal towns o f Costa Rica addressed the split simmering between Guatemala and Leon. Provincial capital Cartago’s 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, Cartago’s 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 Alajuela—each 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. Cartago’s 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.


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

With the rest o f the provinces rejecting Guatemala’s 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 Quezaltenango’s 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.


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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 district’s 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


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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 America’s 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 City’s 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 Mexico’s 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.


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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 Iturbide’s 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


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

1822. Previously willing to follow Guatemala’s lead. On December 25th. which would join San Salvador in 1825. 41 Monterey. No 373. Guatemala and Honduras. Historia de El Salvador.42 Yet if we consider the amount o f attention that has been focused on anti-Guatemala City sentiment. on 18 December. pp. 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. 74. this perceived capitulation to Mexican threats and interests caused San Salvador to align with Comayagua and Nicaragua. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71.41 However. promised in September. in essence followed Tegucigalpa and Granada in choosing Guatemala City over their own capitals. as the only means to resolve the question o f Central America’s political future. in a cabildo abierto . 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. 7 Aug. Fondo DP. Filisola a. and the districts o f Sonsonate. presided by the governor. had held their cabildos abiertos and had also chosen Mexico. beginning in the fall o f 1821. . 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 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. intendant Jose Matias Delgado. held out for the National Congress. ANH. Mariano Aycinena reported that the city o f San Miguel and villa o f Santa Ana. 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.Vicente were among the 23 towns that. The Ayuntamiento of San Salvador held its cabildo abierto. this province also boasted converts to the Empire who. Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. 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. Caja 165.

” in early 1822 and through June 1823. in following the further disintegration of Central America into a collection o f polities at the level o f “sovereign states of every village. it behooves us not to simplify the chaos in terms o f a capital-versus-provinces model so prevalent in previous histories. In the Honduran case. Comayagua. . Granada—that used ties with Guatemala to defend from that provincial capital’s encroachments. Thomas 308 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Government and Society. City and State The case of Honduras.sought separation from their long-time capital. as with the schisms in El Salvador and Nicaragua. Tegucigalpa. 42 See for example Wortman. and fewer than those which were interested in joining Mexico. The Cadiz Experiment. outside intervention and alliances proved decisive both in deepening and in resolving the conflict. Furthermore. in the end. they still amount to less than half o f all towns. Even if we consider all 77 non-respondents as expressing a default option rejecting Guatemala. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. for each provincial capital that. opted for alliance with Mexico over continued government from Guatemala—San Salvador. Thus. Leon de Nicaragua—there was at least one competing city within the same province— San Miguel and Santa Ana. Mario Rodriguez. 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. but to examine the internal workings o f the provinces that fragmented within the already fragmenting former Kingdom o f Guatemala. split by political antipathy between Tegucigalpa and Comayagua. as we have seen above.

1961). “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. and likely instigated. p. Carolina Press. Government and Society. 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. Central America (1824-1960) (Chapel Hill: U.Comayagua’s overt dissatisfaction with Guatemala began in November 1820. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1820. instead. . the council emphasized long-standing grievances with the colonial capital. Comayagua’s ayuntamiento and leading families supported. The move met with opposition in the colonial capital. “Now is the time. 43 Ayuntamiento de Comayagua. The council also believed that taxes collected in Honduras funded government and programs in Guatemala City. since Tinoco’s initiatives included choosing Havana rather than Guatemala City as the destination for his government’s reports. for which they perceived no immediate benefits.” they wTote. Cited in Wortman. 225. The Failure o f Union. 309 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 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. and undercutting o f Honduran cattle production through programs designed. o f N. to reinvigorate abandoned mines. In the official request to the Cortes to approve the new DP.”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 breed cattle closer to Guatemala City. this move.

Fondo DP. 168-170. 225. through integration o f the alcaldia mayor into the district o f the DP. but Comayagua also illegally dipped into the funds (propios) o f the villa and its partidos to finance its own projects. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. flf. 1996). Juan Lindo. p. 310 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Expediente 2301. 45 See Chapter 2 and also Marvin Barahona. Tegucigalpa’s grievances against Comayagua. 1982). Tegucigalpa resented the 1820 Comayagua diputacion provincial's efforts to convince the Spanish Crown to reverse this decision by default. Having achieved political independence from Comayagua in 1812. 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.l Legajo 6930. AGI 531. representative o f Tegucigalpa in Madrid.”44 By mid-1820. A l. see also A G I623.47 44 Wortman. it was not prepared to respond favorably to Comayagua’s orders to preparations for election to Guatemala’s “imaginary congress” since the province o f Honduras had joined the Mexican Empire on September 28.” Tegucigalpa’s prospered. presented repeatedly to the Spanish government. for these were the products she had to trade. 46 Carta del gobemador Intendente de Comayagua Coronel Don Jose Gregorio Tinoco de Contreras Informando Al Rey sobre Su provincia. For original documents relating Tegucigalpa’s specific fiscal and political grievances against its incorporation into the Intendancy o f Comayagua/Honduras. pp. G overnm ent a n d S o ciety. 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.10 Legajo 79. al Ayuntamiento de la Villa de Tegucigalpa. 28 August 1820. . 1804. The original letters can be found in AGCA B 1.46 After independence. 12-13. Expediente 57114. Letter of Santiago Martinez Rincon. Comayagua.the provinces o f Honduras. Not only had Tegucigalpa’s flourishing mines and cattle industries suffered since integration into Comayagua in 1791. 47 ANH (Tegucigalpa). Letter reprinted in Mario Felipe Martinez Castillo. 9 December 1821. the villa claimed. No 300. the Cortes in Spain had approved the new DP but the breach with Guatemala had deepened in the process. sounded suspiciously like those Comayagua felt towards Guatemala. Caja 164.45 If Comayagua’s prosperity suffered from dealing with Guatemalan “merchants o f cattle and silver.

67.”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. Honduran native and lawyer Juan Fernandez Lindo immediately wrote to Tegucigalpa. 1996).”in the R evista d el Archivo y Biblioteca N acional. Such a plea would have been impossible during official Spanish rule. tomo I (San Salvador: Editorial Universitaria. Tegucigalpa petitioned for help from San Miguel and San Salvador. p. p. when the two neighboring cities would have had to clear 48 Francisco J. cites the article.” insisted Tegucigalpa’s city fathers in their declaration o f independence. “do [we] wish to belong to the Government of Comayagua. by November 21. According to Monterey. labor and trade. Comayagua not only decided to break with Guatemala but to inform Tegucigalpa that it. After Jose Tinoco stepped down as governor o f Honduras on 21 November. He. “Actas de Independencia. 49 Luis Pedro Taracena Arriola. nor under any aspect. the tensions culminated. in turn. but ultimately successful. preferring to ally with the Guatemala JPS. pp. Unfortunately. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.48 Tegucigalpa refused. government and location closer to the port towns through which trade was conducted for Comayagua—to increase their political autonomy and control o f land. military. informing that Comayagua had already sworn independence and its intent to join Mexico. bureaucratic struggle to reestablish the alcaldia mayor o f Tegucigalpa (1800-1817). “In no way. H istoria de E l Salvador: A notaciones C ronologicas 1810-1842.Both district capitals sought to make the most o f their resources—mining in Tegucigalpa’s case. Tegucigalpa received Comayagua's act o f independence and instructions on 30 September 1821. Responding to rumors that Comayagua planned to invade it to force recognition as the capital. the replacement. Ilusion Minera. too. then. in civil. 311 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 319. 617-622. should no longer obey the authorities in the capital. the local goals were not compatible with a united province. . Monterey. At independence. ecclesiastic or fiscal matters. 15-16 (1908). T IV . which had supported its long. Nos.

governor o f Honduras. an example that would prove disastrous in each attempt to build a post-independence Central American government.5 1 Comayagua. Historia de El Salvador . Leon’s elite also resented the political interference and economic drain represented by Guatemala City. Granada. 312 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. but also built an alliance with the capital o f Nicaragua. Letter o f Jose Tinoco. which refused to participate fully in Leon’s version o f independence. Leon. to oppose Comayagua. Its diputacion provincial also wrote to the besieged city. informing that it now undertook to serve as mediator. Tinoco accused the city fathers o f Tegucigalpa o f being tricked and oppressed by Francisco Aguirre and his brother.0). but to influence the fate o f the former kingdom. and also faced a recalcitrant junior city. which found itself in a similar situation. 71. Such meddling generally provoked resentment.their responses through Spanish officials in their own province as well as in Guatemala City. sought support from distant Mexico. to the Muy Ilustre y Leal Ayuntamiento de San Miguel y Comandante de Armas. 5 1 Monterey. not just in the area o f Nicaragua. Fondo Diputacion Provincial (DP). hoping to prove that it could replace Guatemala City as a legitimate regional authority. Caja 160. Jose Rojas. 4 (B3. and Dionicio Herrera. ridicule or disinterest. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21 November 1821. who reinforced Guatemalan forces who occupied Santa Rosa and Omoa. 50 ANH (Tegucigalpa). Leon did not merely send troops to help Comayagua. having cut its ties to Guatemala. and did not simplify a return to normal relations based on equal footing within a redistricted territory once the interregnum drew to a close. p.1. Intra-provincial rivalries proved fertile ground on which to experiment with inter-provincial alliances and battles. No.52 Trans-provincial meddling was a trap that each capital sprang.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. .

Comayagua gambled that Leon. He wrote again in early April to express his support for the town’s decision not to take up the request of its pueblo. which had resisted integration into Mexico would be sympathetic.The nature o f the alliances in this instance was demonstrably temporary and opportunistic. Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. 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. Changing partners. San Salvador sought to shore up an alliance with its neighbors to hold off Guatemalan and Mexican control. 313 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Fondo DP. in return. Fondo DP. The city immediately published this mark o f respect in the town proper 52 ANH. the villa learned in January 1822 that the Gainza had promoted it to city. ND.53 Captain General Gainza. to create a competing diputacion provincial. 7 April 1822. I mention that Tegucigalpa answered but do not have the text o f the answer. which recalled its troops. and had designated its “patriotic” ayuntamiento. p... No. Gabino Gainza a.” while still having resources left to attend to reinvigorating the economy. San Antonio.. 54 ANH. Tegucigalpa found that its alliance with Guatemala had cost it its Salvadoran ally. 53 Monterey. would be supportive. 354. Caja 165. Historia de El Salvador. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and to present a “respectable force” to repel the “attacks o f despotism. rather than reflective o f underlying ideological or political commitments. no 352.54 For Tegucigalpa’s loyalty to Guatemala. . also declared independent o f Guatemala and allied to Mexico. 72. Caja 165. could rely on Tegucigalpa not to provoke its former capital. In my notes. Tegucigalpa believed that San Salvador and Guatemala. By the end o f December.

on January 12. 22 January 1822. and have prepared for always brotherhood o f Guatemaltecos and Tegucigalpenses. militarily or fiscally dependent. congratulated its cavecera and reiterated its willingness to put its “few arms” at Tegucigalpa’s disposition alongside its “enthusiastic valiants. Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa al Jefe Politico. caja 162. agreed also that T egucigalpa belongs in now way to comayagua. The je fe politico is Herrera. No.58 For such favors. No. Gabino Gainza to Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. Juticalpa. Fondo DP. 11 January 1812.56 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. 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. In late February 1822. No.57 Nor was such honorific reward limited to the cabecera. Past events. 314 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 149 (b4.” ANH. Gainza praised Tegucigalpa’s heroic resistance to Comayagua’s pretentions and incursions. however sad.and circulated it to the other towns “addicted” to it as capital. 56 ANH. .” 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. 22 July 1823.10). in accord with the general will. 57 ANH. Fondo DP. demonstrating the proof o f its joy with an immediate oath o f fidelity to the new congress in July 1823. Caja 165. Fondo DP. not remaining politically. Fondo DP. Caja 162. Caja 165. have strengthened (estrechados) this city with that. Gainza could count on Tegucigalpa to circulate his message that San Salvador’s 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. No 322. duly circulated. Gainza’s proclamation (banda ). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and that “in the moments o f declaring its union with Mexico. Jose Cabanas to Municipalidad de Tegucigalpa. the Tegucigalpa ayuntamiento was pleased to inform alderman Jose Tomas Funes and priest Tomas Jalon o f Choluteca o f Gainza’s report that they were “worthy o f praise for their zeal. 316. stated that the resolution 55 ANH. noted that Guatemala had made its cause one with that o f Tegucigalpa. 128.55 When Guatemala had to inform Tegucigalpa that it had accepted union with Mexico.

60 ANH.” 59 Gainza then followed up with the prize that would assure him o f Tegucigalpa’s loyalty: notification that he had separated that district from the political and military control o f Comayagua. Simon Diaz. No 538. acknowledging receipt o f this information. Gabino Gainza al Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. 23 January 1822. 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.61 It also sought to entice districts within Comayagua’s district to change allegiance. each regional capital also had to consider how best to improve its position within the province. Angel Maria Medina and Ramon Arriaga. Benito Medina. No 338. 18 February 1822. Caja 165. 25 February 1822. and met with limited success as Tegucigalpa moved to retain their loyalty. Fondo DP.” 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. The town council o f Texiguat also received this information. or o f Comayagua. Luis Alvarez. Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa al Regidor del Ayuntamiento de Choluteca. 58 ANH. Caja 165. 315 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.taken in the colonial capital did not resolve the question. 59 ANH. No 160. 20 February 1822. secretary. Texiguat’s town council was: Miguel Peres. Fondo DP. Danli Ayuntamiento to Tegucigalpa Ayuntamiento. 6 1 ANH. . no 323. no 332. Fondo DP. and interim secretary Vicente Rodriguez. Danli’s ayuntamiento was made up of: Anotnio Jose Lazo de la Vega. Jose Firrafino Vicente Firrafino. Caja 168. Miguel Anonio Rojas. but simply respected the majority vote in favor o f union to that empire that the “pueblos in their open councils have spoken (< espuesto). Comayagua attempted to convince the towns in Tegucigalpa’s jurisdiction to switch provincial allegiance and to accept the Comayagua government and junta. Caja 162. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Vicente Funes de Espinal. Fondo DP. Caja 165.60 In addition to seeking outside alliances. Jose Tomas Funes.

Caja 160. 316 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. The towns of Aguanqueterique. . stated its loyalty as well. La Trinidad.. Jose Rojas. Ayuntamiento de Choluteca al Ayuntamiento Patriotico de Tegucigalpa. Yuscaran. Comayagua was able to recruit only one further town. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fondo DP. Fondo DP. San Antonio Aramezina. 9 December 1822. and Juan Jose Pinel. Caja 260. cordillera. 10. Aguanqueterique. 5 November 1821. Caja 164. the only other well-established Spanish villa. most o f the ayuntamientos o f Tegucigalpa’s alcaldia mayor reiterated their loyalty and willingness to send arms to defend against the importunate Comayagua if required. governor of Honduras. secretary. No. Yntibuca.From the outset. Aguanqueterique had informed Tegucigalpa o f its decision in late 1821.1. No 296. Cerquin. to its side in the next year. the division o f the province into two competing series o f towns was made clearer. it is clear that after its initial sowing o f discord in the Tegucigalpa district.62 Choluteca. the key port towns and garrisons o f Omoa and Truxillo had also changed sides. and Dionicio Herrera. Reytoca. Fondo DP. Mariano Urmeneta. and Aguanqueterique. 5 December 1821. Siguatepeque. Gualcha.63 A year later. The Choluteca council was made up o f Zenon Zuniga. Olanchito.65 62 ANH. Langue. Fondo DP. Yojoa. Taulabe. Sec. Fondo DP. Caja 160. Joaquin Estrada. 21 November 1821. 65 ANH. when Comayagua listed the partidos that recognized it as capital: Nacaome. Echas de diputados a Cortes del Congreso mexicano en el mes de marzo de 1822. and others along their mail circuit (cordillera) had already organized to defend the province. Tinoco accused the city fathers of Tegucigalpa of being tricked and oppressed by Francisco Aguirre and his brother. Baleriano Jolla. Goascaran. Caja 16S. Letter of Jose Tinoco. No 402. Aluvaren. No. 4 (B3.64 During the course o f the fall. Ayuntamiento de Aguanqueterique al de Tegucigalpa.0). Jose Tomas Funes. Jose Antonio Arsenal. 5 November 1821. Yoro. 2 December 1821. San Juan. From the list. to the Muy Ilustre y Leal Ayuntamiento de San Miguel y Comandante de Armas. Otoro. leaving Comayagua land-locked. Alcalde de Tegucigalpa. Lista de los partidos que se hallavan reconociendo a esta capital y a su gobnierno a tiempo de las elns. 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. Caja 164. Cedros. Jose Francisco Larios. No 276. Yuscaran recognized Tegucigalpa as its cabecera. 64 ANH. 63 ANH. Ayuntamiento del Mineral de Yuscaran al de Tegucigalpa. Comayagua.

Caja 164. Gabino Gainza [and] obeying also the Suprema Diputacion Provincial o f Comayagua. Historia de Olancho.. however. no 283. like Nacaome. inviting the town to resist the “new order o f things” that Comayagua was trying to impose. 317 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Some town councils. 68 Ayuntamiento de Juticalpa al de Tegucigalpa. for example. Further reproduction prohibited without permission... A subsequent attempt by Comayagua to collect 66 See.67 In Olancho. impelled by the attendance o f numerous residents at a town council meeting. AGCA letters. 67 ANH.The distinctions o f loyalty were not so clear in some cases. Tom between demands from both provincial powerhouses. Cited in Jose A Sarmiento. apparently pledged loyalty to Comayagua while continuing to claim a connection with Tegucigalpa. Historia de Olancho.”68 However. 69 Sarmiento. in order to ensure a positive local outcome. insofar as his [acts] do not oppose those o f the Capital o f the Kingdom.69 In other words. as well as the Intendant Don Jose Tinoco.66 Others. 21 November 1821. p. . Fondo DP. on the same date. allowed them to protest loyalty to either capital.. [Tegucigalpa’s] cause is not the same as ours because [your] government has been independent o f Comayagua. 85. Silvestre Tome. but this partido never has been. Juticalpa’s council opted to obey constituted authorities. once it includes a legitimate representative o f this partido .Sarmiento found numerous municipal documents from this period in Juticalpa's municipal archive. chose to remain neutral by publishing the official notices o f both would-be capitals. 82. if correctly quoted. like that o f Danli. p. 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. [in order to] put an end to the evils that present themselves. Nacaome to Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. the municipales drafted a statement that. regardless o f which town gained ascendancy.[obeying] as Captain General and [jefe] superior. The Juticalpa letter answered one o f 2 October 1821 from Tegucigalpa. 1 November 1821. the first-ever Juticalpa town council wished on November 1 for the pueblos “to unite their will and submit to one government.

The letter. Jose Maria Barahona. 71 ANH. 21 November 1821. Even as late as January 1822. Juticalpa.71 Caught between two cabeceras and unsure o f the outcome. however. Juticalpa.a new head tax led to a change o f allegiance. nor. No 2. and Jose Leon Maz. 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. Mariano Gonzales. Fondo DP. Bacilio Gomes. nonetheless requested that Lindo stop sending them providencias. 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. The council was Jose Manuel Rodezno. Joaquin Tome. from Comayagua. Jose Manuel Rodesno. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31 December 1821. Ayuntamiento de Juticalpa al GPS de Comayagua Juan Lindo. and ju ez politico. Damian Mendoza. had to inform Tinoco in Comayagua that the pueblo had informed him that they would rather lose their heads than pay the new tax. Felix Martines.70 They also requested the return o f the previous governor. Jose Manuel Rodezno to Tte Captain General and Jefe Superior Politico Jose Tinoco. prize towns like Danli and Juticalpa could not afford to remain neutral. . o f the same family that had worked with the Tegucigalpa Zelayas since the previous century. 318 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Zelaya sought the advice o f the town council. or accords. could they entirely antagonize either possible victor in the conflict. secretary. Baltasar Cubas. 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. unless the rest o f the nation paid as w ell. 19 November 1821. while it did distance itself to a certain extent from Tegucigalpa. Thus. the correspondence o f such towns often reflected the dilemma o f the awkward position o f annexes (anexos). Caja 168. mayor and acting ju ez politico o f Juticalpa. military commander. when Juticalpa’s town council reiterated its “addiction” to Tegucigalpa. Francisco Garay. Fondo DP. no 540. Jose Maria Zelaya to Same. Caja 160.

No 120. as had been done in Ojojona. Fondo DP. No 71. No 147. Caja 162. . Acting governor Jose Manuel Rodesno forwarded the case to the jefe politico of Tegucigalpa 319 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Municipalidad de Santa Ana al Jefe Politico de Tegucigalpa. Fondo DP. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.73 When criminal cases required the intervention of outside authorities. the town said the lieutenant alcalde mayor had officiated. the small. . individual notices o f the system o f this city [Tegucigalpa]. in Guatemala City or another recognized capital. No 122. The town council of Goascoran. from tracking down a fugitive to interpreting a section o f the law. Caja 161. 29 December 1821. it wrote to the jefe politico or ayuntamiento in Tegucigalpa. towns such as Texiguat consulted the Tegucigalpa ayuntamiento to seek permission to form “urban troops” or for clarification.for we wish to have the joy to know them for our 72 ANH. 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.” 75 ANH. it need for its “well-being and prosperity.75 When in need o f news from superior officials.. Fondo DP. 74 ANH.72 When in doubt about requirements for militia. 31 December 1821. the smaller towns counted on their cabecera to circulate this information in the cordillera circuit as well. the cabecera's advice was sought. Benito Medina. 11 (. Alcalde de Texiguat. mining and Indian villages counted on their capital. Caja 162. Regarding the 1821 elections. Jose Maria Reyes and Antonio Mayrene wrote to the Tegucigalpa JP insisting that “he would do as was convenient. 73 ANH.. reminded Teguicgalpa that as an “addict” o f its provincial capital. rural... Mayors Tiburcio Galo. When actual government seemed insufficient—as 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. Tax farmers (asentistas) Pedro Barahona and Hermenegildo Valdes asked not to pay their city and tavern taxes. 26 October 1821.independence..) 1822. to Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. in February 1822. Fondo DP. Caja 162.

Rio Abajo. “Nomina de los Vecinos Principales del Real de Minas de Tegucigalpa en 1762. Llaguacina. Rio Hondo and Talanga signed off on this cordillera. Vicente Toledo y Vivero and Capt. “Testamento de Pedro Martir de Zelaya. Ayuntamiento de Goascaran al de Tegucigalpa. Talanga did not . riq u eza y p o der. Fondo DP.” 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).8 ANH. NO. Fondo DP. Parishes and Districts (Partidos). Mateo. Mayors Marcelo Ferrofino and Juan de Dios Calisto signed the letter. but instead strengthened their ties as villages with new councils. 320 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Caja 115. Tegucigalpa to Clergy. like Texiguat and San Antonio participated in the circuit. Jacaleapa. Herrera explained that elections would use the rules o f the Spanish Constitution. :6-10. 169. 13 February 1822.” 79 See note 60. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78 The Medina family had branches in Danli and Tegucigalpa. Fe. since they were in the immediate jurisdiction.own government. No 178. Padron de Espaholes de Tegucigalpa. or managers. o f the family’s haciendas there. many anexos shared more than political ties with their cabeceras. 3716. 1815. . Joseph Celaya.79 The Valle family of 76 ANH. on elections o f deputies to Mexican Cortes o f 1822-1823. The second cordillera went to towns that seem not to have corresponded with Tegucigalpa in this period. 1776: Libro del Escribano Rivera. such as Gafnza’s January 1822 call for elections for deputies to the Mexican Congress o f 1822-1823. Caja 162. 1992). Suyapa. Herrer's correspondence suggests that they remained with the capital. Caja 163. Independence and civil war did not in any way diminish the political connections between cabecera and anexo. circulated to “all the ayuntamientos in this territory {comprehension). Fondo Colonial. ANH. Villanueva. Tamara. Fondo Colonial. with both operating to resolve everything from small financial cases to accusations o f treason and disloyalty." 77 The courts o f the Tegucigalpa municipality and the jefe politico o f the district were quite full in the 1821-1823 period. Rio Hondo. Dionisio Herrera. possibly because they were so close or small that they formed no councils o f their own. pp. Jefe Politico. Furthermore. A ntologia critica d e docum entos p a ra la historia d e H onduras (Tegucigalpa: Editorial Guaymuras.”76 Tegucigalpa JP Dionicio Herrera made sure that important news. Tamara. 7/ ANH. Leticia Oyuela. Tegucigalpa had long-standing family and economic ties with many o f the towns in the former alcaldia mayor. No 132 and 136. p. 5 and 20 February 1822. As well as setting election dates. The Tome family o f Danli had long served the Zelaya family o f Tegucigalpa as majordomos.

and Caja 171. as well as entree into politics and social life. 133. and likely the father o f Bemabe and Juan Nepomuceno Morazan. Ayuntamiento de Yuscaran al de Tegucigalpa. 2 December 1821. No 402. Juan Bautista Morazan. 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. p. Joint “denuncias ” or claims for new and abandoned mines. 1826. a miner native to Aguanqueterique. to a virgin silver mine near Curaren. o f Yuscaran. 1982). index. with notices such as Santiago Bueso Sotomayor’s joint claim with Pedro Pablo Chaves. the mining towns and cattle-producing towns of the district were the life’s blood o f Tegucigalpa’s greater economy. 8. Padron de 1815. sulfur. Caja 115. Three other members o f the council were from the Paz family. key members o f the Tegucigalpa elite went into business with miners in the district. being registered dozens o f times a year. No 402. ANH. Fondo DP. Miguel Boijas’ family was living at their mine in Yuscaran. m unicipales there in 1821.81 Equally important.82 For an anexo to sever ties with its cabecera would mean withdrawal from long-standing commercial ties—Tegucigalpa had the stores in which miners shopped and procured supplies. presumably supplying tools. Fondo DP. ZELAYA GARAY. It also meant severing family connections that provided banking and matchmaking services to its members. was a merchant and resident of Yuscaran in 1782 (Garay. Fondo DP. Denuncias de Minas. 321 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Felipe Valle was married to Macedonia Lozano. In the same year. which also had its roots in Tegucigalpa and mining. Juaquin Boijas’ family was not in the city. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 1 ANH. Caja 164. No SO. but at the mine. and two o f their number sat on the Yuscaran town council in 1821. p. capital and a market for the work. . The Morazan family had branches in both Tegucigalpa and Yuscaran as well. 8).Choluteca and Tegucigalpa was intermarried with the Lozanos o f Yuscaran. 8‘ ANH. 80 ANH. Caja 176. THIS IS THE SPACE FOR THE WHOLE THESIS TITLE< AND YEAER< AND Universidad de Honduras. Fondo Colonial. Caja 164. This and numerous other cases can be found in Caja 176.80 The Boijas family often spent time near their mines in San Antonio. Mario Felipe Martinez Castillo. were a regular phenomenon well into the mid-1820s.

no 275. the towns o f the district organized militias. 12 December 1821. such as San Miguel and San Vicente in El Salvador. conducting enlistment under the supervision o f the jefe politico. No 96. in the independence period Tegucigalpa and its anexos required each other for defense and information. 5 November. Caja 164. Ayuntamiento de Choluteca al Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. f 13. and those o f the rest o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala. Caja 162. Per article 27. wrote as a son o f this pueblo. The ayuntamiento of Choluteca was made up o f Zenon Zufiiga. I have the honor to offer you all my influences.83 Cantarranas intercepted mail from Comayagua to Danli for Tegucigalpa and Pespire warned o f Comayagua’s plans to invade with troops from Leon and Truxillo in mid-December 1821. Jose Antonio Arsenal. no 305. sec. Dionisio Herrera. the council elected mayor Felipe Reyes as lieutenant o f the third “national” company. 322 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. using its connections with other cities. Fondo DP. 84 ANH. The Tegucigalpa council recalled a decree o f 18 October 1820. 13 December 1821. Jose Francisco Larios. 24 October 1821. Caja 161. provided advance notice o f troop movements in Comayagua. activating an 1820 instruction o f the Spanish Cortes previously circulated by Gainza. was able to import additional troops. 5 November 1821. No 108. Jose Justo Herrera to Ayuntamiento Patriotico de Tegucigalpa and No. all my interests. Ayuntamiento de Cantananas a la Ciudad de Tegucigalpa. Ayuntamiento de Pespire al Jefe Intendente de Tegucigalpa.84 The towns also organized militias. Caja 165. In addition to assurances o f loyalty. as je fe politico o f this partido. Herrera.85 Tegucigalpa. for citizens to form companies.In addition to traditional circuits o f supply and exchange. and occasionally had arms to offer as well. Justo Jose Herrera o f Choluteca. 85 ANH. and took on the burden of 83 ANH. sealed this promise with a remission of 30 shotguns and 1640 cartridges. brother of the acting JP o f Tegucigalpa. The Choluteca city council sent a separate letter echoing his sentiments. as captain o f the company of volunteers o f this villa. Fondo DP. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and juan Jose Pinel. Fondo DP. enlisting and electing their own officials. 276. Jose Tomas Funes. Valeriano Jolla. . that wish to enjoy them. and my life as a gift for the liberty and independence o f the pueblos o f Our Province.

(La Poblacion de Tegucigalpa en 1821. No 130. 90. In October. to JP and Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. Pespire also underlined its resistance to Comayagua’s blandishments. Jose Cerra y Vigil to Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. See Nos. and No 95. asked the Tegucigalpa town council to send him a copy o f the regulations for forming the urban militia that was required. No 94. a merchant. Benito Medina. since the ties that bound each anexo to its cabecera did not necessarily foster cooperation between them. 85. 28 October 1821. the mayor of Pespire was informing the governor of Tegucigalpa that Comayagua. Francisco Delgado and Toribio Melendez. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. was planning to invade. united with Leon and with troops from Trujillo. the city fathers found themselves required to borrow funds from the JP. 323 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. its cavecera}%The city council o f Juticalpa. was supplying arms to Tegucigalpa’s ayuntamiento on request. rather than reflecting a concerted effort at defense. both served in the Tegucigalpa militia in 1821. Cost of maintaining just the Tegucigalpa garrison in March o f the same year was over 10 pesos daily. underlining that it would march in lockstep with Tegucigalpa. Juan Alcaopey to Same.paying them. Revista del Archivo y Biblioteca Nacional de Honduras. formacion de tropas urbanas. 24-27. Caja 161. 18 October 1821. Caja 162. Jose Maria. Fondo DP. and the town council entrusted the organization of their troops to Francisco Aguirre. and by December. . Caja 161. He promised all the help that Tegucigalpa could ask 86 ANH. Fondo DP. 26 October 1821. Nos. in the meantime. Fondo DP. Aguirre and his brother. Even to meet this expense. a Guatemalan native with economic ties in the region. 27 January 1822. despite fears of an invasion by British and Zambo (Mosquito) forces. 91. Thus. renouncing his position. the mayor o f Texiguat. The funds covered costs o f only about 40 soldiers and officers. They were needed there to help their capital after its separation from Guatemalan government. Benito Medina. 87 ANH. the organization had come town by town. al Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa.89 In November. No. for example. 71. Alcalde del Ayuntamiento de Texiguat. The two sought funds for the San Miguel and San Vicente troops’ return to San Salvador.87 Yet it is important to note that Tegucigalpa had to negotiate with each individual town that it wished to recruit to its cause.86 It also coordinated its own troops with those in the countryside.) 88 ANH.

and secretary Jose Gregorio Contreras. Damian Mendoza. perhaps in part because local landowner Dionicio 89 ANH. Vicente Funes de Espinal and Vicente Rodriguez. Calixto Harbin. 324 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. also had studied in Guatemal’s Colegio Seminario in the 1770s. and secretary. Sanders referred to the fact that Comayagua had attempted to paint Tegucigalpa and Guatemala’s positions as “despotic and anarchic. neutral Danli also respected Tegucigalpa. the relationship continued to be a direct line between the cabecera and anexos. ANH (Tegucigalpa). Fondo DP. Caja 165. no. an important mining center where many wealthy Tegucigalpans had interests. 25 February 1822. No 74. 22 February 1822.” 91 ANH. No.for. Fondo DP. Ayuntamiento de Yuscaran al de Tegucigalpa. likely an uncle o f Angel Medina o f Danli (see note 60). 22 January 1822. It is likely that Ignacio Lagos was related to Guadalupe Lagos. Pedro Baraona. 27 November 1821. Luiz Alvares. No.. Caja 163. Francisco Mendeta. Even after Comayagua had planned and earned out an aborted attack on the district to force integration in December 1821. no 338. The Juticalpa council was made up o f Jose Cabahas.92 as did Texiguat and Orocuina. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tegucigalpa. as did Yuscaran. 92 ANH.91 Goascaran reiterated its “addiction” to Tegucigalpa in February 1822. Pedro Barriento.93 In the end. Caja 162. Caja 171-10. and aldermen Francisco Arguello. 340.did not seem to form the basis for a common provincial understanding.. In the November letter. no 178. Ayuntamiento de Texiguat al Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. a Tegucigalpa miner with interests in Yuscaran who would be mayor of Tegucigalpa in 1825. 1 February 1822. In January 1822. however. Fondo DP. Ayuntamiento de Goascaran a la Ciudad de Tegucigalpa. Texiguat’s council was Miguel Peres. Timoteo M a(. Teodoro Rodriguez. Still. 3 December 1821. and this. and No 326. no 316. . Marcelo Ordohes. Ayuntamiento de Pespire al Alcalde lo y Jefe Ynterino de la Provincia de Tegucigalpa. 12 December 1821. Juticalpa remained steadfast. 21 December 1821. Benito Medina.). 90 ANH. 108. 93 ANH. who is also ju ez politico. No 163. Caja 165. Mayor Nicolas Sanders to Jefe Interino. and Jose Manuel Cepeda. Benito Medina. and Salvadoran troops had retired from their protective positions. Yanuario Gonzales. 7 March 1822. and Estevan Rodriguez. Fondo DP. 72. played into Guatemala’s decision to support the province against the Comayaguan annexation.90 The province clearly rallied around its cabecera. Caja 161. Francisco Ylario Yrias. Common enemies. Ayuntamiento de Orocuina a Tegucigalpa. Yuscaran’s council included mayors Manuel Emigidio Vasquez. Alcaides are Marcelo Ferofino y Juan de Dios Calisto. interim secretary. Fondo DP. Ayuntamiento de Juticalpa al Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. Mariano Gonzalez al Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. as well as Comayagua’s acceptance of support from Nicaragua. Ignacio Lagos. most towns remained loyal. Fondo DP. a Tegucigalpa merchant and miner. Ayuntamiento de Juticalpa al ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa.

led this group and had attempted to depose the elected mayor. Francisco Gardela. . Simon Diaz. Gregorio Contreras. By 1823. the 325 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. A group signing themselves “The Miners o f Cedros” reported the existence o f a group that favored returning Cedros to Tegucigalpa’s authority. Angel Medina had family ties with the Ydiaquez and Aranda families in Tegucigalpa. also a Tegucigalpan (Both men would later serve on the Tegucigalpa city council). received a simultaneous appointment by Gainza in Guatemala as the new governor o f the province (jefe politico subaltemo). By late 1823. Angel Maria Medina and secretary Ramon Arriaga. urged Cedros'’separation from both Guatemala and Tegucigalpa. begging to be reunited with a town o f “free men. Ayuntamiento de Danli al Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. who have known to sustain their rights. Contreras drafted the letter to the ANC that underlined how Comayagua had. 18 February 1822. Caja 165. Fondo DP. Jose Firrafino. although Cedros had 94 ANH. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The town o f Cedros was “seduced” in 1821 to join with Comayagua over Tegucigalpa. This case shows the importance that control or influence of a town council exerted. the village divided over whether or not to continue with the new alliance. however.94 There seems to be only one case in which Comayagua initially achieved a conquest of a Tegucigalpa anexo. Miguel Antonio Roxas. and to favor the Mexican empire. the Cedros city council lobbied for resumption of the Tegucigalpa connection. and wrote to the Asamblea Nacional Constituyente (ANC). The miners claimed that the town council scribe.Herrera. Vicente Firrafino.” with which Cedros shared not only commercial and family ties. even in a small village. a Tegucigalpa native. with strong ties there. in 1821. no 328. with the erection o f an independent Central American federation. but a relationship based on mining and agriculture. The Danli town council was made up o f Antonio Jose Lazo de la Vega.

." 326 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.” Under Contreras’ guidance. the municipality o f Cedros reconsidered and. Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa a Francisco Garay. (Tridentino. 1810) AGCA B Legajo 98. found the switch o f allegiance illegitimate and prejudicial. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. urge and even threaten the less wellconnected members o f the community to choose Tegucigalpa. The means by which Cedros was persuaded to return to the Tegucigalpan fold. In 1821.” The steps he took included collecting a donation o f 79 pesos and sending some shotguns and merited special thanks from Tegucigalpa’s ayuntamiento . but earlier in the year in Juticalpa. Contreras’s presence buttressed the decision to express willingness to take up arms on its new capital’s behalf. undertaken by false claims about the benefits that union with Comayagua and the Mexican Empire were to have produced. The cabecera was able to send or make use o f its native sons living in outlying districts to cajole. respectively. He himself had studied philosophy in the Colegio Seminario in Guatemala in the 1810s. 5 December 1821. served as secretary not just in Cedros. when that town voted to rejoin Tegucigalpa in late 1822. and perhaps pressure.96 Greogrio Contreras. Presumably.not received “the slightest injury (agravio ) from these two Cities. since Cordova and Najera families in Guatemala and the Coello family in Choluteca. 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. in 1823. Caja 164. also o f Tegucigalpa.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. Sobre la adhesion de Cedros a Tegucigalpa o a Comayagua. The letter referred to Garay as a “good son of Tegucigalpa. Fondo DP. reflects the tools available to a cabecera to influence its anexos. Expediente 2707. 96 ANH. no 295. however. control over the extensive jurisdiction o f the alcaldia mayor.

hondudata. they instructed Justo Jose Herrera to bring the mayor o f Nacaome. then. Alcalde o f Ayuntamiento of Texiguat. 26 Nov 1821. Benito Contreras. Rivera was also married into the powerful Marquez family there. Justo Jose Herrera. and would later serve as president o f Honduras (1833-1836). Joaquin Rivera.98 One way. The ties that bound the anexos to the cabecera.97 Yet a third example. a Tegucigalpa cabildante o f the early 1800s. as well as in service as the official drafter o f municipal correspondence. is that ofTexiguat’s municipal secretary and schoolmaster in 1821. Caja 165. As an educated person. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. they took various measures. No 71.99 When Silvestre Tome. connected to the cabecera. such a person was in a good position to guarantee that the town councils he worked for acted in conformity with that capital’s wishes. and in 1823 was secretary in Tegucigalpa proper. No. . could be reinforced through individual attention and perhaps indirect threat. See www. Fondo DP. the priest o f 99 ANH. who was a direct descendant o f Estevan Rivera. to the city for questioning.Garay’s 1821 term as mayor had ended. to Alcalde 1° y Mayor interino. In November 1821. that Tegucigalpa was able to influence the politics o f its pueblos was through assignment. Gregorio Contreras served as secretary of both these councils. Caja 161. Letter o f judcalpa to Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. 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. Herrera was unable to fulfill the comision. to Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. Joaquin Rivera signs as secretary. Fondo DP. 98 ANH. In cases where Tegucigalpa’s cabildantes suspected that a town was not resisting Comayagua’s blandishments.htm for more on Rivera’s political career. was reported 97 ANH. 316. 12 January 1822. from this one district. Medina also had relations in Tegucigalpa. and a relative o f contemporary Riveras. Choluteca. 12 January 1822. Caja 162. Benito Medina. Fondo DP. since mayor Benito Contreras had gone to the feria 327 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.

Juan Lindo. He claimed he had had no part in it nor influence over the mayor’s actions. Silvestre Tome. 21 November 1821. Nacaome was responding to a 6 November letter. 366. to avoid a civil war. since this civil official was not under Tomes dominion. the two sides were in conflict (movimientos) but the beginnings o f reconciliation were about to commence. one ayuntamiento to another. attempted to win Tegucigalpa’s loyalty in June 1822. The meeting was to include a three-day banquet. bypassing the medium of governors and diputaciones provinciates.100 By May 1822. ending the rivalries. Fondo DP. in San Miguel. On October 16. No. Tome suggested that it was praiseworthy if the tranquil town opted for neither side. be forming a “faction” (the Central American term for political parties opposed to the government). Caja 164. Comayagua sued Tegucigalpa for peace for the first time. 328 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Fondo DP. 25 June 1822. no 283. Nacaome to Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. however. He received assurances that the rest o f the cabildo o f Nacaome would put Contreras under house arrest upon his return. 100 ANH. that would have permanent effect. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The former capital wrote that now the time had come to clarify the political situation and fill with honor both pueblos. a Honduran native and newlynamed governor of Comayagua. Comayagua offered a meeting between two representatives o f each side in Rancho Grande. remaining neutral as the only means to preserve its reputation and tranquility. The indignant curate responded that he had no such intention and that if the Nacaome mayor chose to publish Comayagua’s providencias as well as Tegucigalpa’s. disunions. 1 0 1 ANH.” 101 It was another mechanism. Caja 165. . with an emphasis on the end to government “from another world. they wrote asking him to cease subverting his parishioners. Juan Lindo to Ayuntamiento de Tegucigalpa. and divergences that former governments had embroiled them in.

”102 It was too early for reconciliation. Between the smaller districts divided in the civil war o f 1822. A few days later. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 October 1822. Despite Pespire’s willingness to take up arms against Comayagua. had previously included Pespire among the towns that recognized it as a cabecera. Fondo DP. Francisco Yzaguirre. that could upset Pespire and deprive it o f peace and tranquility. Secundino Quifiones. Jose Leon Rios. 329 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. but agreement o f the two municipalities was what was required to reach a solution. Nacaome mayor Comelio Valle also resisted orders to allow soldiers to march on Pespire to remove their commander. and publication o f the peace throughout the Empire to serve as an example for “other pueblos in like case. which sided with Comayagua in the conflict.” and opted to dispatch the other mayor. other mechanisms were used to attempt reunification. . Juan de la Rosa Muhos. either peacefully or through coercion within the state. and secretary Ciriaco Vasquez. Although most modifications o f allegiance within state boundaries were resolved. No 379. Juan Jose Mendoza. 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. which had contributed to 102 ANH.” that is family and economic relations. Valle recognized the “fatal results. or state. Nacaome issued an invitation to its former anexo to send an elector to the scheduled elections o f Comayagua’s deputy to the Mexican congress o f 1822-1823. Caja 165... Ayuntamiento de Comayagua al de Tegucigalpa. from prison. Josef de la Pasqua. He also noted the “intimate. to ensure his moderation was noted. Rafael Bustillo. Nacaome. those outstanding in 1823 went to the ANC for decision.embraces to show fraternity. Francisco Gutierrez. The Comayagua council was: Victor Rodas.

22 February 1822. 330 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 27 February 1822. No 546. Comelio Valle. but had been rejected as making an “indecorous” request. proved to be an adequate. 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. likely weighed heavily in this decision. Caja 165. 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. which had switched from Tegucigalpa to Comayagua in the early days of independence. especially those that included power sharing in some institutionalized form.the “true brotherhood and inalterable harmony” that linked the two towns. However. The Cedros town council had previously petitioned the Honduran state government. if not ideal. 1 0 4 ANH. Fondo DP.104 A similar mechanism resolved the political fate o f Cedros. representing Comayagua. Mayor of Nacaome. when the full congress considered 1 0 3 ANH. The ANC’s Government Commission initially recommended leaving Cedros attached to Comayagua until the Constitutional Committee could determine the division o f the new Federation’s territory. Nonetheless. Municipalidad de Comayagua a la Municipalidad de la Ciudad de Tegucigalpa.103 Democratic mechanisms. Caja 168. This new municipality did refer to the municipality o f the city o f Tegucigalpa. With the ANC in session. No 402. Joaquin Lindo. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Honduran committee member. . located in Comayagua. to return to the jurisdiction o f Tegucigalpa. the jefe politico o f Honduras. Fondo DP. No 544. followed the new regulations and forwarded the case to the ANC for resolution. Comayagua’s cabildo was: Jose Severino Quifiones. a former Spanish official and straightforward and honorable man. 17 November 1823. Letter o f Ayuntamiento de Nacaome al de Pespire.

The city’s lener. Yzaguiire and Juan Lorenzo Cruz. Two members were illiterate or not present. determined to separate that district from El Salvador and unite it with Sonsonate.the committee's recommendation. Chalchuapa. Ahuachapan and San Miguel in its break from Guatemala and Mexico in January 1822. had handwriting o f well-educated men. German Guerrero. p. although only two members. Juan Romero. Jose Gregorio Doblado. . it resolved to return Cedros to the district o f Tegucigalpa until a final decision was made. which took its decision on 2 February 1824. 76. and Jose Luciano Zepeda. Felipe Mencia. In El Salvador. drafted and written by Gregorio Contreras.105 *** The dynamic o f a resistant city or town using the mechanisms o f persuasion. Juan Solano. but was copied in Comayagua on 15 October 1823. The other literate councilors were Mariano Membrefio. Historia de El Salvador. Quezaltenango first invited other highland towns to jo in their districts in a Francisco Cantarero. As in Honduras. The Cedros municipality letter o f 6 October 1823 went first to the jefe politico superior o f Honduras (Comayagua). was signed by the members o f the city council. election or coercion to convince its anexos to support its pretensions and to recruit new districts was widespread. It dispatched Chilean-bom sergeant major Nicolas Abos Padilla in order to assure the incorporation. Secretary 1 0 5 AGCA B Legajo 98 Expediente 2707. Ysidro P. in return. when hearing o f Santa Ana’s resistance to the Salvadoran overtures. and Miguel R. which in November 1821 sought to aggregate neighboring provinces to support its ambition to be a separate district within the Mexican empire. The battle between Comayagua and Tegucigalpa represents just one example. regent Antonio Jose Leyva (?) and sindic Feliciano Mendes. 331 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Manuel de Jesus Soto. San Salvador sought to include Sonsonate. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Juan Ignacio Maradiaga. Nolasco Membrefio. 106 Monterey. Jose Maria Guerrero. Raimundo Boquin.106 Arturo Taracena has sorted out the strands in the case o f Quezaltenango (Guatemala). Most were literate. This je fe forwarded the case to the ANC. Santa Ana. Cubas. The Guatemalan junta. Francisco Bueso. who sent it to the his homologue in the Federation on the grounds that redistricting was not one o f his responsibilities. The “Miners o f Cedros” lener is undated.

in the fall o f 1822. pp. 107 Taracena.separatist movement. Another. Gainza and Mariano Aycinena. For at least a brief period. protested to Iturbide that “Quezaltenango wants to annex pueblos to have a greater extension that makes it capable o f being a Capital. Quezaltenango would have its jefe politico. determined by August 1822 to grant Quezaltenango effective control of a vast highland district to avoid direct confrontation. resisted the appeal. the tactic would succeed. Invention Criolla. as in Honduras. 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. leading the JPC in Guatemala. the regional capital. Totonicapan. They also sought to annex parts of Suchitepequez that were contiguous to Guatemala and could provide a Pacific coast outlet. it seemed that here. when invitations proved insufficient. Totonicapan and even towns as distant as Antigua Guatemala. Totonicapan. 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. . 88-93. As in Honduras. writing to Solola. As in Honduras.107 As in Honduras. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.” Although initially inclined to take a hard line. and part o f Soconusco. it was the towns o f its designated region that Quezaltenango sought to annex. Huehuetenango. 332 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. whose jurisdiction would extend to the districts o f Solola. the Quezaltenango authorities used force. One. Suchitepequez. different towns sought different means o f protection. presuming they would bring both land and residents with them.

such as the municipal role in organizing militias and collecting donativos. but local interest. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. With the Spanish Constitution still determining responsibilities. Each December during the interregnum. Thus. since Central American towns were comfortable with them both from the 1812-1814 introduction and the revival o f 1820-1821. all acting governors and juntas continued to apply the electoral system set up by the Spanish Cortes. some responsibilities. local electoral juntas would convene to select the mayors. in this 333 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. in which popular elections selected parish and then partido representatives who would in turn vote for local and national officeholders. Even in disputed cases. . both the institution and members o f the city councils o f Central America found their power unblemished. the laws o f Cadiz served as the basis for resolution.City Council and Power In the interregnum. These laws were used in practice. as the juntas provincials fought to establish authority over vast expanses o f territory. led to increasing visibility and influence when choosing sides in intra.and inter-provincial confrontations. he appealed to the district jefe politico. sindics and aldermen for the subsequent year. this meant that city councils also had the power to thwart provincial aspirations. that made an electoral system work. town and city councils retained the significant government functions o f the Cadiz period (see Chapter 5). they turned to city councils to support and fund their goals. they found that in a period of upheaval. Independence provided Central American towns the chance to prove that it was not Spain. Regardless o f the district. As we saw above. Further. when Inocente Vega of Dolores Ysalco sought in 1822 to renounce his election as mayor for 1823.

Cristobal Trejo (?). for propagating ideas “in favor o f the republican system” and sharing with town 108 AMS. 13. forwarded each man’s request for exemption to acting governor and Mexican military chief Vicente Filisola. who upheld the first election. Secretary Felipe Zequeyna signed for the missing aldermen. and served in the Sonsonate city council as mayor in 1821 and alderman in 1835-1836. Caja. 334 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. denounced the municipal secretary o f his town (pueblo). 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. 1822. and an alderman named Viscarra. As seen above. This secretarial importance was far from unique. the governor o f Sonsonate. and not each department's jefe politico. Jose Norberto Moran. Ynocente Bega. As the drafter and executor o f official municipal documents. 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. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. No. the power to annul an election. Estevan Duran. Householder ( vecino ) of Ahuachapan. Jose Francisco del Castillo. the secretary had an important platform from which to influence local politics. Casimiro Menendes. The other officiating members o f the Ysalco town council were Judas Tomas Delgado. a mere 45 days after his first complaint. such as town notary or scribe. No 2. who argued that the Cadiz decrees in effect only gave the jefe politico 1821-1829. Vega assumed his office on 30 January 30 1823. in the towns attached to Tegucigalpa. arguing that his loss of an eye made him unfit for the post. Atanacio Monzon. de Yzalco se escusa dl nombramLo de Alcalde. who often served in other capacities. Fernandez Padilla was a lieutenant coronel and the military commander as well as jefe politico o f Sonsonate district {partido). Lorenzo Castillo. he was chastised by the man elected to replace Vega. Juzgados. . after this reminder. Although governor Jose Fernandez Padilla agreed to exempt Vega on these grounds. Fernandez Padilla. El Sor.

Further reproduction prohibited without permission. as was also clear above. he did. Miguel Arevalo. Comandante General de la Columna Exped. . Expediente 1380. de Guate contra San Salvador. Mendoza could or would not identify individuals. 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. who maintained a correspondence with Juan Manuel Rodriguez. Legajo 25. 12. so we will thus be Mexican.ll Legajo 75. Arevalo also suggested that Moran was interested in ensuring that Salvadoran troops stationed in Santa Ana come to Ahuachapan. 2 weeks later. Expediente 2246. 110 AGCA B5. 3. On his arrest on 29 March. Yet.11. Legajo 75. 112 AGCA B5. Valdevellanos fled for refuge to Guatemala City where he wrote on 13 November that “the general population (la generalidad) favors Iturbide. 25. 24 April 1822.4 Legajo 59. f. 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. 29 March and 12 April 1822.5. i no Bammdia was a young liberal of Guatemala City whose prolific and anti-imperialist writings were not always well-received. on 12 April..112 109 AGCA B 5 . 6 March 1822.”11 1 When asked. Marcelino Mendoza.. This Spaniard. said that the actual “addict” o f the republican system was Norberto Moran. vecino of San Salvador. city mayors retained traditional influence as well. The San Salvador mayor. was one o f the few deposed in 1821. Casimiro Garcia Valdevellano. was deposed in early November to end his use o f the municipal platform to promote union with Mexico. f. Expediente 2246. Expedience 2246. and these are precipitando .11. Manuel Romero and Antonio Prado to Coronel Manuel Arzu.” 1 1 1 AGCA B5. It took two weeks under interrogation. f.for there are really few who want a Republic. resented by the liberal and republican elite o f the Salvadoran capital.110 The mayor o f the same town.residents the writings (escritos) o f (Jose Francisco)Barrundia. the council syndic. 335 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.

Invencion Criolla. when voters responsive to ongoing upheavals in Mexico and Peru selected individuals perceived capable and stable enough to manage whatever crisis or transition arose.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. state and national office holding would continue throughout this period. the year in which Central America achieved its bloodless independence from Spain. 336 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Cirilo Flores. it demonstrates that this group o f individuals also served as a resource when executives nominated departmental governors. In 1821. served as mayor in his town in this year. . 86. 1 1 3 Taracena. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ambition and power. Tegucigalpa. vicepresidents. few years saw as distinguished a selection o f cabildantes as 1821. an architect o f Quezaltenango’s independence movement and later president o f Guatemala. p. (See Table 6.113 The overlap o f municipal. 114 See Chapter 7.114 Although municipal officeholding retained its cachet for men o f political interests and ambition well into the nineteenth century. Flores also represented Quezaltenango in the ANC o f 1823-1824. Additionally. congressmen and senators well into the 1840s. ministers. A selection from three town councils o f 1821—Guatemala City. the seats in important city councils were filled with men o f political acuity. and Sonsonate— shows cabildantes holding elective state and federal office as presidents.3) Nor were these three town councils the only ones to have distinguished members in this year.

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.. 1824) * Jose Francisco de Cordova—ANC (Santa Ana. Federation (Congressman. Secretary general) * Jose Francisco de Cordova-Guatemala (1827. later senator). 1823-5). 1827) * Jose Santiago Bueso Sotomayor—Comayagua (DP. Antonio Robles CpL Miguel Jose Manrrique Lie. del Valle—Fed. 1825-6. 1839. Congreso Constitucional. 1839) * Manuel Romero-El Salvador (1824. 1846-1847. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Guat. Hacienda). Pedro Arroyave Lie. (Congress.Antonio Espanol y Lopez Lie.Executive. Honduras (1825. 1841 M ilitary 337 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. died before taking office) Vice President * Jose Cecilio del Valle-Federation (refused) * Pedro Jose Valenzuela-Guatemala (1835) M inister * Pedro Jose Valenzuela—Federation (1830. Chief of Section. Guatemala (1832. General Ministry) C ongressm an * Mariano Aycinena—Guatemala (Verapaz. Truxillo. El Salvador. Federation (1834. Federation G overnor * Francisco Juares-Tegucigalpa. 1830. Consejero de Estado) * Manuel Romero-El Salvador (Consejero de Estado. (Congressman. 1850 * Esteban Guardiola-Teguc. 1827 Judge * Eusebio Ruiz-Tegucigalpa. 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. Guatemala (Sacatepequez. Mariano Aycinena y Pifiol Lie. 1841. 1823-5). 1835) * Jose C.Table 6J City Councilors of Guatemala City. 1842-1843) * Jose Antonio Larrave-ANC (Esquipulas. 1821 * Francisco Rivas-Sonsonate. 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. Tegucigalpa. . Sonsonate. Jose Fco. Secretary general) * Felipe Reyes-Honduras (1825. Senator. 1829) * Pedro Jose Valenzuela-Guatemala (Chimaltenango. 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. 1826) * Francisco Rivas-Fed. Jose Antonio Larrave J. UPCA (1824). 1821). Jose Cecilio del Valle Mariano Larrave MD Satumino del Campo Ariza Lie.

1821 * Capt.* Jose Fernandez Padilla-Sargento Mayor. Marure. Yet Filisola. Vicente Filisola. 1966). the principal cities of Central America declared their independence from Spain. Guion Historico delpoder legislativei de El Salvador. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. From June 1822. The 9 November 1822 order o f Iturbide to divide Guatemala into 3 comandartcias generates—Chiapas. it cannot be said that a unified government in fact controlled the region in this period. and for the most part represented the will o f one city and its elites to control politics within a specific region. Historia de El Salvador. with Mexican and Guatemalan troops. p 97. Francisco Juares. Mexican laws. Nueva Guatemala.html Conclusion Between September and November 1821. 338 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. including a redistricting o f the former Kingdom o f Guatemala into three were implemented on a piecemeal basis. 1821-1823 * Capt. Colonel Vicente Filisola—sent by Mexican emperor Agustin Iturbide at the head o f a military column to govern and to ensure Central America’s annexation—lived and worked with the authorities in Guatemala City. Thus.115 The provincial juntas continued to work through 1 1 5 Monterey.3): Romero. Often. they failed to do so. 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. spent much o f his time in Central America bringing recalcitrant provinces El Salvador and Nicaragua into the fold. while between January 1822 and June 1823. the former colony officially joined the Mexican Empire. and Manuel Rincon. l aParte: Constituyentes-Legislaturas y sintesis biogrdjicas des sus presidentes. .70 (San Salvador: Publicaciones de la Asamblea Legislativa. Furthermore. 1825 Sources (Table 6. was never implemented. Leon de Nicaragua—under Brigadiers Miguel Gonzalez Saravia. 1822. competing jun/a? existed or erected themselves in each. Miguel Jose Manrrique. Efemeridades. this new affiliation did not lead to coordinated government. www.

by 1823. when the Mexican Empire showed strong signs o f self-destructing from within. By the beginning o f 1823. If previous elites had complained at the distances between Guatemala City and their provincial capitals. on becoming independent from Spain. .” 116 The problem had become much greater than what to do with a dozen provinces upon independence.their governors. First. and perhaps most 116 Manuel Montufar y Coronado. Memorias para la historia de la Revolucion de Centro-america (1832). In the meantime. where trading interest was strong. recovered their natural liberty. Third. it became clear that Mexico itself was not prepared to invest politically or militarily to back up its supporters. Central American leaders had to ponder what to do with 200 towns. old and new city councils acted on the belief that with the Spanish “compact” broken. not simply on the responsibility o f local administration and obedience to a cabecera. and except in the case o f Costa Rica. 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. they had the right to decide on their political future. it was clear that the union with Mexico would not work. rather than cooperating with forces in Guatemala City. and were free to form new societies according to their convenience in the new order o f things. Second. the tensions within Central America were too great to support any joint or even individual decision to join the political powerhouse to the north. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 339 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. except in Chiapas. a year o f slow and laborious correspondence with Mexico City simply confirmed that distant capitals provided more drawbacks than advantages. the divisions within each province seemed to widen rather than heal during the interregnum o f 1821-1823. then.

and the power vacuum in Mexico City made home rule seem more sensible. 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 future—absolute independence or continued union with the beleaguered Mexican empire—the call met with support as towns and provinces moved to elect deputies to attend the Congress. the elites of provincial towns and cities determined to participate in a true national project. Guatemala and El Salvador. 340 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Asamblea Nacional Constituyente (ANC). for the moment. elites o f the former Kingdom o f Guatemala had decided to attempt a joint solution. . the Mexican Empire that Central Americans had supported (however reluctantly and intermittently) had disintegrated. While the differences and divisions that surfaced so disruptively in 1821 had not been resolved. Thus. After two years o f paying the economic and political price o f promoting local over regional politics.important. Nicaragua. in March 1823. Costa Rica. which opened its doors in June 1823 and eventually included representatives from Honduras. formally declared absolute independence in October o f the same year. at least.

Creating the National State “The pueblo of the Federal Republic o f Central America is sovereign and independent. having taken the name Asamblea Nacional Constituyente (ANC).” Preamble. the territory separating Mexico from South America assumed a common name—Central America— that did not reflect one of its parts—Guatemala—but instead the assembled whole. A week later. After declaring independence from Spain and Mexico for the Provincias Unidas del Centro de America (UPC A) on July 1. “We.. Salvador and Alcaldfa Mayor o f Sonsonate. judicial and legislative functions. Constitution o f El Salvador..” “The pueblo of the Republic is formed by all o f its inhabitants. 341 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1841 On June 24. the General Congress of the former Kingdom o f Guatemala began its sessions. met in a Constituent Assembly. the ANC set to work to establish a republican system with separation of executive.Chapter 7: City. the representatives of the pueblos included in the Intendancy of S. the representatives o f the Salvadoran pueblo. 1825-1839: From Pueblos to Pueblo. 1824 “We. State and Nation in Central America. met in a Constituent Congress. 1823.” Preamble.. 1824 Title 1. 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. Articles 1 and 3. the congress began the work o f healing the wounds o f the interregnum and establishing the legal bases for a federation. .” Constitution of the Federal Republic o f Central America. Constitution o f El Salvador. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. For the first time..

religious and municipal districts into a standardized and codifled whole. Margadant. Dios. see Ted W.Not content with renaming the land it would govern. ladinos and mulatos became citizens. The Central American motto. were abolished. and derived from other influences. Efemerides de los hechos acaecidos en la republica de Centro-America desde el aho de 1821 hasta el de 1842. Union. Urban Rivalries in the French Revolution (Princeton. p. 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. the ANC set out an entire program o f linguistic changes that reflected new ways o f thinking about government and society.1 Provinces. a rebaptism o f the institutions o f political authority hinted at a break with the past. As had happened in France and the United States following their revolutions. Vol. Former Spaniards. Indians. Concern was also shown on maintaining the independence o f extant municipalities. Some extended principles first adopted under the Spanish constitution. Biblioteca Guatemalteca de Cultura Popular (Guatemala: Editorial del Ministerio de Educacion Publica. the ANC renamed the audiencias o f the past cortes territoriales (territorial courts). 18. 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. 1956 (1844)). replacing the traditional Dios guarde a Ud. NJ: Princeton University Press. titles of nobility. Chapter 2 and Chapter 6. Some were new. number o f inhabitants. Liberty) adopted by the ANC became the close on official correspondence. or wealth o f inhabitants. 1992). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Proposals for the division of former districts into departements differed over whether the new territories should be equal in criteria such as physical territory. Equally fundamentally. Libertad (God. Creoles. 342 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. including the honorific “Don” applied to all pure-blooded Spaniards. noble. . Union. 9. diocesan titles were limited to the inoffensive “padre” (Father) rather than excellency and other titles previously enjoyed by bishops and archbishops. were to become states. The 23 July 1823 decree which renamed territory and inhabitants is mentioned in Alejandro Marure. Drawing from the language o f the French revolution. o f course.

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. 1800-1846 ([Buenos Aires]: Editora Espasa Calpe. It was the pueblos o f the isthmus that had proclaimed independence and opted to join a federation. page 18. one o f Central America’s politicians and its first post-independence historian. sovereignty would lie. Estados: Origenes de la Nacion Argentina.2 If renaming the institutions o f government and territorial demarcations was quickly achieved and equally quickly applied. How were the new leaders going to take the pueblos. a more fundamental shift in the nature of political thinking was much harder to accomplish and even harder to name. 3 Jose Carlos Chiaramonte. . Easily and permanently adopted. highlighted the new terms in a special entry in his timeline o f important events o f the many years). or set of communities. As Jose Carlos Chiaramonte noted for Argentina in the early nineteenth century. 343 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Ciudades. Central American usage was consistent in the 1820s. p. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. it behooves us to define our terms. 1997). a pueblo was the free association 2 Marure. the word pueblo “is one o f the terms that brings most confusion resulting. the sovereign towns. 114.”3 The same multiplicity of meanings existed also in Central America. for all the possible meanings o f the term pueblo.. from the coexistence in the era o f Independence o f both old and new meanings. According to political usage. Yet. Provincias. Central Americans reached independence as part o f municipal communities. these linguistic shifts were nonetheless felt to be extremely important Alejandro Marure. Efemerides. and make one pueblo.

by electing deputies to the congress. 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.5 Given the municipal independence of Central America. or an individual town. pueblos. or nation. it was not the only one in use.”4 As the ANC declared in its bases for the 1824 constitution. . p. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.o f individuals who chose to live under one set o f laws. this definition is the only way to understand the appellation o f a “national” congress o f 1823.. At this time.” The “nation” was simply a confederation o f states whose inhabitants agreed to be bound by a common set o f laws. in the 1820s and 1830s. Ciudades. Central American politicians used the word nacion. P rovincias. 5 “Informe Sobre la Constitucion leido en la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente el 23 de mayo de 1824. States (Estados) were “the great moral bodies that compose the nacion. 4 The quote is from an 1815 article in the Gazeta de Buenos-Ayres cited in Chiaramonte.” reprinted in Carmelo Saenz de Santa Maria. “El proceso ideologico-institucional desde la Capitania 344 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. as a synonym for the pueblo that made up the federation. Estados . whose sovereignty had allowed them to choose their form o f government. Although pueblo was often the preferred term to refer to political communities. The different pueblos of Central America had. 116. any one o f the states. referred to the collection o f city-states. or to the collection o f states that made up the federation. 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. agreed to work jointly to establish a mutually acceptable political system. the republicas. The plural. or nation.. and could refer to either the collective inhabitants o f the federation.

Otras Rejlexiones sobre reforma politico en Centro-America (New York: Imprenta de Don Juan de la Granja. liberty and independence of our provinces?” 345 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Title 1. Article 1 o f the 1824 Constitution reads. 279. the pueblo meant the political entity created. 1824. p. the ANC deputies took it upon themselves to establish a federation before there were.” Article 3 continues. The states o f the new federation were supposed to form such an association. o f Central America into pueblos.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. not in the sense of forming a new homogeneous society. 6 Constitution of the Federal Republic o f Central America. Chiapas. 6. As Mariano Aycinena pointed out a decade later from exile in the United States. Articles 1 and 3. or states o f a federation. The people o f the federation became one pueblo only in the sense o f being part o f a voluntary political association. 260. 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). “O f the Nation and its Territory. the four intendancies o f San Salvador.7 The delineation o f the territories—or selection o f the pueblos—that would make up each state o f the new Central American republic was among the most challenging tasks of the ANC.” he asked. “The pueblo o f the Republic is formed by all o f its inhabitants. ‘T he pueblo of the Federal Republic o f Central America is sovereign and independent. Nicaragua and Comayagua provided an important basis for political division.” “Why. making them a pueblo. as the subject o f Title 1. Under the Spanish Constitution and Gainza’s electoral divisions. The word nation appeared only once in the 1824 constitution . states to make it up. or towns. . 1834). in fact.” 7 Un Centroamericano [Mariano Aycinena]. Arguing that North American deputies in the same situation had agreed to an alliance before they created a federation.”6 In both cases. pp. Aycinena castigated the deputies for having “more presumption than knowledge. or people. “did they not limit themselves like the others to proclaim the sovereignty.

346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Its early decisions show its preparedness to consider forming polities distinct from the model that holds that intendancies would become states. and anywhere else considered 8 See for example Thomas L. Still-extant corregimientos in the area around Guatemala City remained independent districts. as did the alcaldias mayores o f Tegucigalpa and Sonsonate. and not the intendancies. The ANC certainly recognized the importance o f acting in a way that acknowledged the political status o f the municipal-sized pueblos. Government and Society in Central America. Among the earliest acts. on July 17. 1982) and Carlos Melendez. were the politically sovereign pueblos that had participated in independence. Karnes. Chiapas had apparently elected to remain part o f Mexico when the other areas o f the Kingdom of Guatemala had proclaimed their independence. the congress called for new municipal elections and allowed establishment o f diputaciones provinciates in Quezaltenango. Chiquimula. 1824-1960 (Chapel Hill.claim that the intendancies were an uncontested blueprint on which the ANC modeled the new federation’s states. NC: University of North Carolina Press. 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.8 Still. Furthermore. . Miles Wortman. 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. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. as we saw in the previous chapter. Tegucigalpa. 1961). 1993). 9 For more details. the task of the ANC was not so simple. The Failure o f Union: Central America. La Independencia de Centro America (Madrid: MAPFRE.9 The governorship o f Costa Rica retained a separate political identity despite its attachment to Nicaragua. These. 1823. see Chapter 4. 1680-1840 (New York: Columbia University Press.

Pending official creation o f a federation. 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. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 347 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. D. The city of Granada asked not to form part o f a Nicaraguan state with Leon.” The ANC considered Cordova’s representation on 30 August 1823. while the district o f Matagalpa decided to separate from district capital Granada and to unify with Leon. to engineer their participation in the new Central American polity separate from their colonial capital (San Salvador). Cordova asked that Santa Ana depend directly on Guatemala. The 17 July decree was read on 1 August and approved on 4 August 1823. Jose Francisco de Cordova. they had not forgotten their grievances or ambitions. If the many districts o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala had put aside their animosity to join in a congress. Exp. Marcelino Menendez y D. 91. although it eventually settled for joining El Salvador rather than Guatemala. The town and pueblos o f Santa Ana instructed their deputy to the ANC. 1 1 AGCA B Leg. 84. Sebaco and Jinotega’s 1 0 AGCA B Leg. Matagalpa. Ldos. with the requisite determination o f territory before such bodies were to open.necessary. Jose Francisco Cordova. f.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. 2453. the affiliation the rest o f the independent districts of the capital area chose. 2386. Santa Ana’s 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. Sres. their aspirations would be considered. with which they claimed to have “inimical relations” due to recent events. .1 1 Sonsonate’s deputies at one point petitioned to become a separate state in the federation. 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. 1. Exp.

Exp. or even the positive participation. por un Estado separado del de Leon. freedom to sell liquor (aguardiente). 91. No date or signature. We will never know what the deputies would have decided had they been given sufficient time to evaluate each request and respond to it.1 3 In the early days. f 8.” 1 3 AGCA B1 Legajo 91. se cuente a Granada con los partidos que se tenga por conveniente unirle. 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. 16 and Leg. 2385. Guatemalan. 1 2 AGCA B Leg. What was clear was that the acquiescence. 348 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. “ Guatemala 21 September 1823. 2455. Expediente 2472. it was not clear what the makeup o f the Salvadoran. Matagalpa. Suchitepequez. and Nicaraguan states would be. Exp. f. then.” 12 One deputy introduced a motion to discuss whether to create a state called “Los Altos”— essentially. Guatemala’s highland territory made up o f the regions that had separated in 1821-1823: Quezaltenango. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. No. Conditions placed on the change o f allegiance included: forgetting past affiliation with Granada. “Pedimos que en la distribucion en Ios estados federados que se ha de hacer en la constitucion que se esta formando. Leon’s participation in the ANC and a Central American federation. . 1823. 84. 4 Sept. When it became clear by December 1823 that the capitals o f the former intendancies o f San Salvador. The ANC sent the request to the Constitution Commission the next day. o f the new federation’s principal cities and even the smaller towns encouraged to express their opinions by the model o f politics worked out after independence— Central America’s pueblos —would be required for the new compact of states to come into being.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. the congress quickly moved to provide general outlines for the nascent states to follow. Solola and Totonicapan. 2. Granada's representatives Benito Rosales and Manuel Mendoza wrote. The district's decision was not absolute. 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.

In other words. 14. . As the provincial congresses met in 1824.” Yet. to choose the state of their allegiance. 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. Further. 91.” without doing violence to another partido or directly harming the “state. The composition o f the individual states o f the federation. 31 December 1823.” This response extended the possibility that a partido could join a different state “on its border (que sea limitrofe). 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 reproduction prohibited without permission. the ANC stated explicitly that the appropriate districts (partidos) participate in a governing council (junta gubemativa ) in preparation for each provincial congress. was an important question whose resolution required both federal and state intervention. 349 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Only after it had no choice did the ANC decree that each province should respect its “former limits. then. the ANC was tom between a desire to satisfy local needs and the practical requirements o f building a viable federation. which were essentially regional towns and their satellites. even with this constraint. 1 January 1824. to defuse any tension that might result from accepting the intendancies or bishoprics as bases for states.” 14 In other words. ff. Once again. Exp. Sent to Constitution Commission. the ANC recognized the political sovereignty o f the pueblos and their right to voluntary association. 2458. In late May 1 4 AGCA B Leg. the congress allowed for individual districts to respond to “local circumstances and general utility. partidos.

and not to permit the dismemberment or inopportune division into small and weak portions. 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. 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. nor union among incoherent pueblos and territories. it nonetheless managed to take steps to provide for 350 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. . 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. morality and education (ilustracion ). 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. 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.” however. .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. wealth. as the congress determined that the basis for a state would be a minimum o f 100. and.1824. an important element given Central America’s heterogeneity o f population in terms o f ethnicity.000 inhabitants and an area with contiguous terrain. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. What might well have differed was the territories included in each polity and the internal divisions o f districts. was a relative term. culture. hence. “Small. matters for order and interior tranquility.. Furthermore. power. not to open an ample road to premature requests.

1 8 See Appendix R8. it allowed for a study to determine if the territory met population. the state o f Los Altos briefly existed. Pesadilla Indigena: Los Altos de Guatemala. Por Pedro 351 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. before being taken forcibly back into Guatemala (1838-1839).” reprinted in Carmelo Saenz de Santa Maria. Soconusco. exiled in 1829. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 9 The fascinating story o f this district’s final annexation by Mexico in 1842.17 Other changes were immediate. Valenzuela. ANC. See Arturo Taracena Tarriola. over Guatemalan protests. informing that the district had voted to join Mexico over joining the Central American Federation. wealth and education (ilustracion) criteria to form a separate state.18 Since Mexico disputed the Soconusco region. Pedro Jose Valenzuela. . 18 September 1824. de Region a Estado. J. 16 AGCA B7. Decree. ff. Guatemalan Secretary o f State reported on how Manuel jose Arce. although the ANC determined to keep the highland territories within the state o f Guatemala. Invencidn Criolla. Guatemala: CIRMA. Expediente 2952. Sesiones Secretas. Expediente 92804. 279. for exiles from both countries found that none o f the city governments would cooperate to bring them to justice in either country. '' AGCA B1 Legajo 4125. 11 May 1824. Until Mexico’s takeover. Chiapas was invited to form a sixth state o f the Federation whenever it was prepared to do so. “El proceso ideologico-institucional.change. A decade later. P. Having read communications from Ciudad Real de Chiapas o f 24 and 14 September. tried to use Soconusco as a staging ground for his return. Imprenta de la Paz. Sueno Ladino. 1740-1850 (Antigua. Memoria presentada al Congreso Federal de Centro America. territorio de Centro-America ocupado militarmente de orden delgobinero mexicano (Guatemala. can be read in an anonymous pamphlet.” Revista de Indias (1978): 260.25. both countries agreed that the district would remain under the government o f its three city councils until a final solution was reached. Due to the Nicaraguan civil war. Legajo 113. 7-8v. al comenzar sus sesiones ordinarias del ano de 1832. the territory functioned as a staging ground for banditry and political plotting. Articles 5-6 o f the Federal Constitution o f 1824 stated that the Republic would comprise the former Kingdom o f Guatemala.16 Similarly. with the exception o f Chiapas which would become a state o f the federation when it freely joined.20 1 5 “Informe Sobre la Constitucion leido en la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente el 23 de mayo de 1824. at least in the future. the ANC determined not to act but to seek input from the executive branch. 1842).19 Mexico annexed the territory in 1842 on the grounds that the independent city governments gave safe-haven to plotting political exiles and bandits. In 1832. 1997). the ANC authorized the state o f Honduras to temporarily incorporate the Nicaraguan district o f Segovia (1824-1826). Article 16.

This vote was not the end of the matter. 4v. Nicaragua and Costa Rica. paving the way for the establishment o f a federation composed o f these. 2 1 AGCA B1 Legajo 4125. from the government of Guatemala. Expediente 92804. The manner o f the switch is worth examining. and. This former alcaldia mayor opted in 1823-1824 to join the state o f El Salvador rather than that o f Guatemala.21 A few changes were achieved. however. both o f which had been considered part o f Honduran territory for most o f the colonial period. secretario provisional del Estado y del despacho de guerra y marina (Guatemala: Imprenta Nueva. 1842). In 1825. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. for it shows the mix o f democratic and undemocratic procedures that influenced politics in the period. despite (or perhaps because of) a 300-year history as an indirect satellite o f Guatemala City. . the town of Sonsonate pronounced for annexation to El Salvador. 352 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. The pamphlet contains interesting primary sources. A majority o f the towns. f. and only these. territorio de Centro-America ocupado militarmente de orden del gobiemo mexicano (Guatemala: Imprenta de la Paz. Honduras. Session of 17 June 1824. San Salvador. AGCA B1 Legajo 84. in this case. ANC. On 23 November 1823. Honduras wrested control o f the port o f Trujillo and fortress of Omoa. Expediente 2388. including Ahuachapan. by 11 May 1824 the ANC decreed that congresses would be allowed in Guatemala. Ahuachapan determined to use the Jose Valenzuela.22 The only region within the Federation to withdraw permanently from one state to annex to another was Sonsonate. 7-8v. and invited the pueblos that formed the previous alcaldia mayor to do so as well. 20 Anonymous. 1832). however. ff. ratified the vote on 22 December. sealed the union of Sonsonate with El Salvador. 11 May 1824. states.Despite these good intentions. On the same date the El Salvador congress also ratified the aggregation. Decree. 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. Soconusco.

After the local referendum favored El Salvador. In 1855. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. which created o f the department o f Sonsonate. Las Constituciones de El Salvador Vol. 10-12 (Guatemala). with the disputed 4 villages once again under its direct authority (Atiquizaya. Title 1. Guatemala accepted the loss o f Sonsonate philosophically. the Sonsonate department cabecera changed with political circumstances. Once part o f the state o f El Salvador. an event recognized in the Salvadoran constitution o f 1824. It remained a district in the department o f Sonsonate until 1869. 1825. Tacuba. Articles 35 and 36.24 It bears mention here that the rule o f law was not the only glue that bonded Sonsonate to El Salvador. which instructed the parishes to elect representatives to vote on whether to join Guatemala or El Salvador. Section 3.23 Ahuachapan’s bid for county status was denied. this voluntary annexation began with and was cemented by the marriage o f Pedro Jose de Arce—a 22 AGCA B 91-2473. 23 Constitution o f Guatemala. 494-505. ff. Santa Ana and Sonsonate. on 5 March 1824. although the constitution listed the district as part o f Guatemalan territory.occasion to seek to reinvigorate a 1795 instruction to make it the cabecera o f a small district. the question had reached the ANC. Ahuachapan became capital o f a distrito in Sonsonate in 1869. Apaneca). ed. the ANC formally ratified Sonsonate’s aggregation to that state. moving from Sonsonate briefly in 1835 to Ahuachapan and then spending twenty years in Santa Ana. 3 and 5 January 1824. with Guatemala objecting to the shift in Sonsonate’s alliance. . While legislation formalized the decision. The law o f 22 May 1835 establishing Santa Ana as capital o f the Sonsonate district can be found in Isidoro Meneudez. and had included in its 1825 constitution the possibility that the district would join another state. *4 Ricardo Gallardo. the Salvador legislature decreed the division o f the department into two. Manuel Fraga Iribame (Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispanica. when the Salvadoran legislature created the Department o f Ahuachapan. Las Constituciones Hispanoamericanas . 1961) pp. By early 1824. Ataco. Both were included as territories in the 1825 Honduran Constitution. 14. rather than to enter into a compact with El Salvador as a part o f the district o f Sonsonate. with the cabecera o f each to be in the town after which the department was named. Recopilacion de las Leyes del Salvador en 353 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.

and 1848. p. 1855). and had been their depositary o f funds in 1832. Efemerides. 26 Pedro Jose de Arce was brother to Manuel Jose de Arce. and underlines that the legal system worked best when it echoed the actual goals o f those with power. Finally.member o f one of San Salvador’s leading families and brother to a Federation president—to the daughter o f one o f Sonsonate’s principal families. no permanent rupture followed. If Sonsonate’s allegiance was tom when invaded by Guatemalan or Salvadoran troops who pursued each other across its border territory. 50. 1840. president o f the Central American Federation (1826-1829). pp. Jose Matias Delgado. XXXV. 1842. between Eugenio Rascon and Maria Ana Escolan y Delgado. 1833. La Cooperation de Mexico en la Independencia de Centro America. in 1821. Book 4. 181. Although there were conflicts between San Salvador and Sonsonate over the first few decades. He was also governor o f Sonsonate province in 1824. sealed the political and social union of the two cities. Title 1. La Cooperation de Mexico en la Independencia de Centro America. 50-100. 137) 2' Filisola. he served as interim chief o f state (Jefe Provisional) in El Salvador in 1841 (See Appendix M and Marure. the Rascons. p. The 1855 division of 14 February is in Book 4. Law 8. p. 1911). in the series Documentos Ineditos o muy Raros Para la Historia de Mexico. Law 3. p. Vol. Arce was elected to the city council. 354 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. In other cases in which political votes did not produce the same permanent cohesion. .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. a signal o f full integration into local political life. Pedro served on the Sonsonate town council from 1834-1835. 25 Vicente Filisola. we Centro-America. 1821-1855 (Guatemala: Imprenta de L. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 180. Filisola does not record the name o f the bride. niece o f the bishop of San Salvador. Luna. (Mexico.26 A second wedding. the elite union that accompanied the democratic annexation helped smooth them over. Title 1. The political choice made by Sonsonate’s leading family pre-dated the legal confirmation o f the move.25 A decade after moving to Sonsonate.

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. . Such tensions contributed to two decades of highly disruptive and violent politics and military engagements that resulted in the dissolution o f the federation. since the external borders agreed upon in 1825 endured. What was the upshot o f the forced conclusion o f the ANC’s consideration of local and regional petitions during the formation o f states within the Federation? One can argue that it was a success. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.can only wonder if hostile behind-the-scenes relations between elites prevented political union. 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. as noted. there was widespread support for the self-definition o f a pueblo . with political rights at the level o f the colonial city district. unique within the Central American experience. 355 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. The spirit that had conceived o f and implemented an isthmus-wide referendum o f 1821-1822 was still active. Sonsonate’s successful and legal switch o f states was. or community. and the new states were conceived o f as a composite o f sovereign pueblos united under one law.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. the ANC simply passed on the problem o f internal tension and conflict to them. That is. Yet the cost o f this consolidation was extremely high.

81. Efemerides. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. passim. . The Five Republics o f Central America. In part due to the presence o f the federal capital. p.1: Capitals. April 1838-July 1838 Antigua Guatemala September 1826 S. 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. 1832). the only major alteration o f state territory was 356 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. The disruption experienced in hosting the federal capital led to the fall o f two state governments (Guatemala.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. DF) Federation Guatemala 1825-1826. 1880Tegucigalpa Honduras 1825?-1845 Leon Nicaragua 1845 Masaya Nicaragua 1845Managua Nicaragua 1826San Jose Costa Rica 1838-1839 Quezaltenango Los Altos Source: Marure. El Salvador. Central America. 1826. Munro. 1825-1842 City Years State 1825-February 1834 Guatemala City Federation February-June 1834 Sonsonate Federation San Salvador June 1834-1839(1836-1839. neither :s After Segovia was reabsorbed into Nicaragua in 1826. Table 7. the murder o f one vicepresident (Cirilo Flores of Guatemala). 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??.

Guatemala nor El Salvador had a stable seat for its state authorities until the late 1830s. when Tegucigalpa’s elites wrested the government back to their city. or to counter foreign influence or invasion. an experiment that ended in 1831 with Comayagua’s assumption o f the role o f capital until 1849.htmand Josesantosdelvalle. and ended in 1839 when the Salvadoran legislature reincorporated the territory back into their state.29 Until elites agreed to work together in the aftermath o f indigenous and mulatto revolts in the 1830s. El Salvador. whose politics were decided by republics o f cities. and San Jose and Cartago (Costa Rica)—over issues relating to government location led to internal strife.hondudata. In the other three states. pp. Tegucigalpa and Comayagua. A sketch o f the principal the 1838-1839 independence o f Los Altos from the state of Guatemala. experimented with dividing state authorities between the two cities. and President Juan Lindo decreed Tegucigalpa capital on 22 June Regarding the situation o f Comayagua and Tegucigalpa. competition between principal city pairs— Comayagua and Tegucigalpa (Honduras). Granada and Leon (Nicaragua). 11 .htm 357 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. military engagement. The problem o f maintaining a republic made up of states. Efemerides. 79. 86. enlarged in 1836 to include the distrilo o f Zacatecoluca. for example.hondudata.htm. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29 See Appendix R for examples o f changes in political divisions in Guatemala. In Febuary 1835. 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. it was extremely hard for governments to consolidate their hold on power and extend their authority. 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. . was made manifest. but it was not until 1880 that this city remained the permanent home o f the Honduran Government. El Salvador moved its capital from San Salvador to San Vicente (1832) Marure. Honduras and the Federation between 1825 and 1850. See: http://www. San Salvador and some of its pueblos were constituted into an official federal district. and at times.

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.conflicts provides a sense of the general dynamic o f resolving disputes through military invasion (Table 7. Gvt.2: Principal Civil Wars. first caudillo (Carrera). fed.. convocation o f new congress Salvador refusal to recognize federation. rize o f Fco. Matagalpa Defeated Defeated Federation wins 18271829 18271830 1827 Nicaragua El Salvador-Federation (Fed uses Guate. State 3 towns denounce chief o f state D. Morazan ousted. Salavdor) Highland districts separate from Guatemala’s government S. Efemerides. passim. support fed. Heredia vs State/San Jose (Capital) Popular classes resist liberal reforms. Ho. Fed. V. followed and killed when found.2). Gvt Morazan’s decision to sack the Salvador government Cartago. troops) Federation-El Salvador Honduras Nicaragua El Salvador Nicaragua Federation-Salvador (Fed=Guate. Fed changes Sal. . Honduras & Nic. El Sal joins vs. Jose. Costa Rica-Federation Ouster o f liberal gvt . Indians rebel vs.(Galvez). Refusal to host fed. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Conservative Guatemala (Carrera) brings back to state Morazan eventually ousted. uses Guate. Herrera Indian revolt (Aquino) vs. (Arce). judicial. esp. troops) Federation-Honduras 1827 1832 1832 1832 1833 1833 1834 1834 1835 18361838 1838 18391840 18381839 1842 Omoa-Federation (Fed. Nic) Costa Rica Guatemala Costa Rica Nicaragua & HondurasSalvador Guatemala-Los Altos Ramon Guzman and morenos oppose fed. Source: Marure. practical end of federal government. 358 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Table 7. Alajuela & Heredia oppose attempt by returned Morazan to reestablish fed. Morazan. by fed. state Granada & Metapan vs. non-elite origin Usurper controls until 1842 Many battles. Managua. 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. Dominguez vs. Arce/Federation oust liberal government in Honduras Results Fight or arrest o f Guatemalan gov­ ernment dissolution o f congress. new gvt. Victory o f state Granada & Leon unite to beat dissident Masaya. Alajuela. change of federal government Defeat o f Guzman et al. Capital leads to Morazan attack. Elected president ousted Oppose federation (capital is S.

clear narrative o f the early years o f federal rule. In response to federal bullying. “Conservatives and Liberals. the dynamic of the independence period remained very much alive. Thus when the federation waged separate campaigns against the Salvadoran and Honduran governments in 1827. exacerbating tensions between states. or resist separatist movements by principal cities with improper political alliance. 359 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. the federal government pushed elites within states to unite to oppose federal invasion. Although Woodward perhaps relies too strongly on the idea of two opposing political parties. Rafael Carrera and the Emergence o f the Republic o f Guatemala. Nicaragua and Guatemala when it seemed as if state executive or legislative branches diverged from federal policy. with the principal cities 30 See Woodward.This conflictive dynamic indirectly explains some o f the consolidation o f some form of state authority. invasions by the federation often resembled invasions the federation’s state o f residence (Guatemala or El Salvador). . these two states joined with Nicaragua to defeat the troops o f Manuel Jose A rce. Yet. Chapter 2. Since a federal army made up o f soldiers from all parts o f the territory was never assembled. 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. By its interventionist methods. challenging and replacing state governments in Honduras. attempt an alternate form o f federation. despite the alliances forged between state legislatures and executives. 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. El Salvador. state authorities looked to their neighbors to ally to take on the juggernaut. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.30 Elites in each of these states had to put aside local quarrels if they were to succeed in ousting external intervention. 1821-1837” for a thorough.

or towns. However. sovereign cities or districts that voluntarily joined the state. in fact. and effectively ended republican federal rule for three years. the state congressmen represented a myriad of small. The cities themselves continued to behave as if they retained sovereignty. in the aftermath o f the municipal independence. but also met in the often-tricky role of determining a region’s allegiance in the many civil wars that broke out in post­ independence Central America. the municipalidades o f the Central American federation promulgated laws and announced constitutions. Municipal districts. . As part o f their political tasks.continuing to act as if they had the sovereign right to withdraw from their states if they strongly disagreed with government policy. The language most chose indicates that. 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 years o f 1826-1827 were not typical. 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.. in that they reflected numerous political changes that led to a civil war that divided.. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. met in a Constituent Congress.. El Salvador’s 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. remained at the heart of the political ideology o f the state-formation process as well.” That is. 360 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. o f their districts. they still considered sovereignty to reside in the pueblos.

By April o f the same year. In August. in order to prevent the type o f bloodbath that had divided Nicaragua. these fears seemed well grounded as a messenger brought news o f an attempted assassination o f the president of Honduras. . Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26 A pril. a problem rendered more acute because Tegucigalpa was a mining center. The following days. the council deliberated whether to arrest known “disturbers o f order” who were said to be holding meetings. when news o f the assassination o f the vice president o f Guatemala reached the town. 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). the city council received the new state constitution o f Honduras and ordered its publication. the city agreed to the president's request to send 50 unarmed men to him in Comayagua from their militia (cuerpos civicos).31 In this instance. 28 January. 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. 1826. the city and governor resolved to ask the local priests to exhort the populace (el pueblo) to respect the government and its authorities. 361 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. By November 7. On 27 November. Actas de Cabildo. On 4 November. Caja. 4 August & 3 November 1826. in January 1826. 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. and to urge the establishment o f an official mint there.In Tegucigalpa. the city council wrote its state capital to protest the circulation o f debased currency.

as loyalties remained divided between the new capital. the juggling was particularly acute. On 8 May 1827. surely tinged with relief. In 1827. and opened a response from the state capital forgiving their sins and welcoming them into the new government. the acting mayor—who replaced not only the elected mayor. 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. as was the case with Leon and Granada in Nicaragua. For places like Sonsonate. San Salvador. who had fled the town. A celebration. . Tegucigalpa was not alone in juggling the responsibility o f responding to political tensions and uncertainties. A month went by before the council met again. If officially Tegucigalpa’s municipales served a city within a state. in fact. Tegucigalpa. the Sonsonate city council was called upon to cope with conflict. long-time rival o f Comayagua. and even within the Spanish empire. and to seek protection against its error in siding with another faction.state government agents. bitter civil war could result. which had opted during the first days o f the first Central American constituent assembly to join the state o f El Salvador. and the old. accompanied the communication o f this missive to the 362 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. When two such powerhouses competed for political control o f new states. but also the other aldermen who should have assumed the post—drafted a letter to assure the acting chief o f El Salvador o f the town's loyalty. Guatemala City. they served the city first and the state only after deliberation. preferred to negotiate a deal by which the capital o f Honduras would alternate between the two principal towns. Yet it is important to point out that this was not the only model that inter-city clashes followed.

32 The town was less fortunate in 1834-1835. 25.34 As these examples underline. Caja Municipalidad..” suggesting that the Salvadoran government might well have to face the possibility that its own towns supported the federation. 1834-1836. had written to several “municipalidades in Honduras. The divisive behavior of the elite cities was particularly evident in 1838- 32 AMS. Sonsonate had been informed by M. Title 4. Cubar that Salvadoran troops had secured Izalco from the federation. 1821-9.33 Perhaps Sonsonate’s correspondence with the municipalidades of San Vicente and San Miguel made the state capital nervous. Sessions o f 8 May.neighboring pueblos o f the department. Law 3. p.. it would be 20 years before the town regained its position as provincial capital. j3 Menendez. Correspondence. 363 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. San Miguel had responded to Sonsonate’s invitation to respect constitutional order with an indication that it.. on behalf o f a town and its neighbors. a change of municipales to a group sympathetic to a new state government often accompanied an official plea. 1827. On 1 August. using the town council to deliberate on matters o f state and to undertake alliances without seeking state sanction first. 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. as in others o f its ilk. in turn. Recopilacion de las leyes. even though Sonsonate had written to congratulate the new state assembly on its installation. Alcalde de San Miguel al de Sonsonate. 2 June 1827. . After all. p. Caja Actas Municipales. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In this case. Book 1. 31 August 1834. Libro de Actas. 176 M AMS. the cities o f Central America continued to operate as politically sovereign entities. for forgiveness for supporting the enemies o f a winning faction. although operating within state systems. and its Honduran chief. 1830-9.

and Tegucigalpa disowned the state o f Honduras until it withdrew from the federation. the new legislatures were no longer unanimous in a political ideology that celebrated and protected municipal sovereignty. by 1839. 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. 1841. Legislators went from representing cities as sovereign to favoring sovereignty of the state and its government. however. Constitution o f the State (El Salvador). pp.”36 Honduras’ constitutions o f 1825 and 1839 reflected the same linguistic and conceptual shift. even though it would be an additional decade before they officially assumed the status o f independent republics. it was clear that the states would survive. the shift reflected 35 See Marure. Efemerides. with representatives o f the pueblos (1825) being replaced by representatives o f the pueblo (1839).. 1824. the states o f Central America had declared themselves sovereign and separate from the federation. when Antigua withdrew from Guatemala. Quezaltenango led nearby provinces to form a separate state. j6 Preamble. 99-120. 364 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Even in 1839.1839. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.. was followed by Chiquimula.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. . and set up its own government.37 This shift reflected the fact that. Sacatepequez and Verapaz. Almost twenty years after the first political experiment in republican government had taken shape. Constitution o f El Salvador. The 1841 Salvadoran Constitution was introduced by the representatives o f the singular “Salvadoran pueblo . Preamble. With the track record o f two decades o f civil war behind them.

back 3' Preamble.” ■ to If legislators in the early. 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. In Article 2 o f the 1825 Constitution. Under the watchful eye o f federal president Morazan. rose up against the reformist government o f Mariano Galvez (1831-1838) and toppled it. the legislators had stated. the message required reinforcement in the main cities o f the isthmus in the late 1830s. They also brought the new state o f Los Altos. Decree 76. those discussed above. began as conflicts between elites. personal tax. “The pueblos of Guatemala. The transfer o f sovereignty from city to state was not absolute. 1825. . Political Constitution of the State of Guatemala. united in one sole corps. form the State. Guatemala’s legislators.” although they acted “in use o f the powers conferred on us by the pueblos . a different sort o f political battle was shaping up. Constitution o f the State o f Honduras. suffering from multiple Indian uprisings against similar taxes. The indigenous and ladino populations of Guatemala.39 However. 1839. loosening o f restrictions on marriage and divorce. their cities.a changing rather than a changed ideology. had had enough. 5 December 1839. the rural population of at least one state. Guatemala. led by a charismatic young man named Rafael Carrera. were “representatives o f the State. by the m id-1830s.” 365 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. After almost ten years o f land expropriation. optimistic years had laid out a program o f consolidation that would move sovereignty from the cities to the states. Constitution of the State of Honduras. in the constitution of 1825 as well as its reform in 1839. The first conflicts experienced during the federal period. 38 Preamble. and establishing a judicial system based on juries. Preamble. 1825. and either state or federal authorities. Preamble. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the tensions there favored a change to conservative rule in the 1830s. . Rafael Carrera and the Republic o f Guatemala. unlike the bigger cities. This can be seen through an examination o f the government structures set up. while the elite cities divided states in the first decade o f self-government? The record suggests that through their behavior. it behooves us to consider the practical organization o f the states of the federation. What had these forces been doing. Although a similar uprising in 1830s El Salvador had been crushed by the state. 366 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 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 following section suggests a way to understand why. we also consider the constitution o f the states of Central America through a model better described as bottom-up. given the internal tensions and divisive civil wars fostered by the principal cities and towns. reinforced their participation within a particular government. having taken the top-down approach to understanding the tensions between and among elite groups in most o f Central America. each state in fact consolidated in this period. as well as the activities o f the small towns that.into Guatemala (1839). 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.. .The States will thus be as homogeneous as 39 See Woodward. city councils in the smaller towns followed a path designed to build states. That is. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. rather than destroy them. for discussion o f the political ideologies supposedly at bay. In the bases for the 1824 federal constitution.

” reprinted in Carmelo Saenz de Santa Maria. Just as the territories had similar structures. in which state governors and priests would reside. Each established a republican government with separate legislative. 367 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. among towns. . judicial and executive authorities. so. 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. and district elections would be hosted (See Appendix R). which divided power in the countryside.corresponds to pueblos that are always united and brothers. territorial division was the work o f the legislature.”40 The republic of cities would give way to the republic o f states. In post-colonial Central America. 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 ). “El proceso ideologico-institucional. too did the governments of the federation and states o f Central America. As units o f one federation. governors and priests. or district capital.” Revista de Indias (1978): 278. the states of Central America indeed created similar territorial and gubernatorial structures. As noted above. Each department and distrito had its cabecera. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. as Miles Wortman reminds us.

but also to write them.2. political and military officers. 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.-'- Royal appointment Royal appointment Royal appointment Royal appt. Van Oss (1986). Government and Society. a new series of executive.3: Institutions of Republican Central America. Applying republican ideas o f universal citizenship. 1824. 239. Table 13. from local nomination (CG) Election/Purchase Popular Election Popular Election Popular Election Popular Election Popular election Executive Appt.. judicial and legislative authorities took office through the novel means o f elections and attempted to revamp the Central American political system.. Constitucion de la Republica Federal de Centro-America.. The Spanish king and his Council o f the Indies had previously selected bureaucrats bom outside the region to serve as chief judicial. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 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 . Under the federal system. At the state and national levels. p. the congress granted suffrage to all 368 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Popular Election Popular Election Popular Election Executive Appt. 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. . .Table 7. Town & Village) State & provincial authorities Local authorities Sources: Wortman.

including Guatemala. office or property which prvides means of independent subsistence” was a provision continued into the 1850s. Indians and mestizos. 1. 1824. See also the discussion regarding establishing a government ministry and commission to protect Indian communities. were not. El Salvador limited the vote to literate or property-holding male heads o f household 21 years o f age or older. it appears that elections regularly took place in the over two hundred 4 1 See Federal Constitution . including the insistence that government decrees be translated into indigenous tongues and that the indigenous benefit from a translator when dealing with the government. AGCA C l Legajo 56.41 Even when several states. 1851. naturalization. the new Central American republic and its constituent states codified the enfranchisement o f the casta and black communities o f the isthmus. A seminary graduate (que obtengan grado literario) or married man 18 or older could also vote. Title 3. 14 December 1839. Decree 76. retained the legal right granted under the Spanish constitution to elect their local and national officials as any other community. Section 2. moved to provide separate legislation and protections for Indian communities by the 1830s. regarding reestablishment o f labor requirements. More significantly. In 1864. Discussion and Decree 37. 1835. Section 2. Constitucion de El Salvador. Title 1. Some o f the provisions. Articles 7 and 8. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Title 2. were positive and sensible. Article 13. their official status and rights o f citizens was not revoked.” Reformas a la Constitucion Federal de Centroamerica. the vast majority o f Central America’s inhabitants. July-August 1839. . 42 See article 3. Others. rejecting once and for all any definition o f citizenship predicated on continent of origin. and." (Article 1) but then calls for protection of Indian communities but does not abolish Indian citizenship. Article 14. endured until the 1860s. are guatemaltecos. 16 August 1839. on the condition that they exercised a useful profession or had “known means o f subsistence.42 Despite the possibilities for fraud and election hijacking in a country with a high illiteracy rate. Art. That a “guatemalteco” needed “a profession. according to laws establsiehd or to be established by the Constitution. 369 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1864. This decree reiterates that “All those bom in Guatemala or naturalized there. The Federation’s 1835 constitution granted citizenship to native-born or naturalized residents over 18 years o f age or married. Expediente 1565. Constitucion de la Republica de Guatemala. These liberal definitions of citizenship based solely on place of birth. Honduras’ state constitution did not address questions o f citizenship. Asamblea Constituyente de Guatemala. if necessary.financially independent adult male heads o f household and made the town council an entirely elected body.

“o f contrary (opinion)” in the recent civil war. Individuals elected members o f parish popular councils (juntas populares). The partido electors would meet in their cabecera to elect departmental electors who would meet in a junta to elect federal and state authorities. UUnpublished doctoral dissertation. . 1810-1840. and Legajo 36. Expedientes 897. in times o f political turmoil. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. who in turn elected their district (partido ) representatives. Mexico (DF). and vastly increased the number and variety o f adult males exercising at least passive voting rights. Legajo 117. Expediente 941 for 1839 and 1840 congressional elections. towns within a district might find it impolitic to send representatives to a cabecera they had not supported during a conflict.44 However. citizens o f the Central American federation elected authorities in an indirect system. 44 See AGCA C l Legajo 36. 370 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.43 The republican electoral system reinforced the cohesion o f municipal communities. 898. 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. It also reinforced the distinctions between district and departmental capitals (cabeceras) and their constituent villages. whose electoral councils (Juntas) selected not only local government but also the men who would choose state and national authorities. it appears that electors were willing and able to make the trip to their cabeceras to cast their votes. Expedientes 3456 for 1829 state president and vice-presidential elections. Colegio de Mexico. 904 and 905 for 1824 Guatemalan state elections. In most cases.towns o f independent Central America. Congress unsympathetically pointed out that the electoral juntas of 43 Xiomara Avendaiio Rojas. Following a system similar to that o f the Spanish Constitution. “Procesos Electorates y Close Politica en la Federacion de Centroamerica. 1994. and Legajo 38. for example. The governor o f Chiquimula (Guatemala). Expediente 493.

Menendez. and their towns to cities. and the state’s need o f its cooperation.45 The importance o f the municipal body. 45 AGCA C l Legajo 117. Marquez. and Herrera) proposed developing the Pacific port o f Dolores (in Danli). 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. and instructed him to hold his elections in the designated areas. a port on the Pacific coast of the province o f Escuintla (site o f present-day port o f San Jose). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Title 4. Jefe Departamental de Chiquimula. Mariano Trabanino. Law 3.. and thus deserving o f special encouragement. South American and North American traders who plied the Pacific coast. The Congress considered and rejected the request on August 6. in the ANC the Honduran deputies (Lindo. Expediente 2473. depriving a town of significant importance. 10-12. ff. al Congreso de Guatemala 2 July 1829. Book 1.4). for services to the current cause (see Table 7.Guatemala and Quezaltenango had met. and was picked up as state legislatures throughout Central America promoted their villages to towns. while 14 Guatemalan deputies championed Iztapa. 46 In 1835. p.46 The trend began with the ANC. and a 10 year reduction in duties.47 The port cities were the gateway to increased trade with European.. Expediente 3449. It called for a voluntary subscription o f landowners and merchants to fund the rehabilitation o f the port by the Consulado de Comercio. The ANC and subsequent federal and state governments offered special subsidies or tariff reductions to port towns in attempts to increase trade. despite similar political schisms within their districts. Just as deputies to the Spanish Cortes had argued for funds and reduced tariffs to revive ports. Recopilacion de las leyes. the state of El Salvador moved the capital of the department of Sonsonate to Santa Ana. 371 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 176 4' The Guatemalan port petition can be read in AGCA B1 Legajo 91. .. a state could move the departmental capital to punish a disloyal cabecera.

1849 (1948). 36. 99. Efemerides. 1836 Suchitoto (ES) Villa 1837 Nicaragua Leg. Honduras. 176-177. Decree: Comayaguela -Villa. Ciudad Pueblo 1829 Ciudad Guatemala Leg. 87. Menendez. 64. pp. pp. Nicoya (N) Pueblo Villa 1847 Pueblo El Salvador 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. the legislature decreed that the cabecera would be Zacatecoluca.Constituciones de El Salvador. Leg-Legislature ES-E1 Salvador. (?) 1831 Chalatenango (ES) Villa Pueblo El Salvador Leg. note 5. 57. Recopilacion de las Leyes de El Salvador. pp. 58-60. Ciudad Guanacaste (CR) El Salvador Leg 1846 Villa Ciudad Cojutepeque (ES) ANC -Asamblea Nacional Constituyente (Federation. Recopilacion de Leyes relativas a la historia de los Municipios de El Salvador. San Fernando (ES) Villa Pueblo Honduras Leg.48 The state. 372 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.Tab e 7. Villa Pueblo El Sal Leg. 1835 Amatitlan (G) Villa Ciudad 1836 Pueblo Costa Rica Leg. Gallardo. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. N-Nicaragua. When establishing the department of La Paz in El Salvador in 1839. Equally. . 75. p. 89.4: 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. Santiago Nunualco and Olocuilta. H-Honduras. Revista del Archivo y Biblioteca Nacionales de Honduras 26 (11 & 12): 509-510. 1823-1825). CR-Costa Rica Community Sources: Marure. Larde y Larin. Asamblea Constituyente del Estado de. with no manpower to deploy in the countryside. Totonicapan (G) 1831 Pueblo Guatemala Leg. 1833 Pueblo Ciudad Salama (G) Nicaragua Leg. 494. 1835 Pueblo Juticalpa (H) Ciudad Guatemala Leg. but the governor would reside alternately in that town. 1835 Villa Nicaragua (Rivas) Ciudad Honduras Leg. Ciudad Flores (G) Ciudad Guatemala Leg. G-Guatemala. it could acknowledge similar levels o f importance o f district towns by rotation o f the governor through important towns in a district. had to rely on city and governor to fulfill all the functions o f secular government.

populated by Spaniards and their descendants. The time in which only around a dozen o f the isthmus’ most important towns and cities. pp. As earlier chapters have shown. 373 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Title 4.49 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. 180-181..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. Law 6 (17 May 1839). and perhaps contradictory. at the same time it can be interpreted as a sign of continuity with the colonial bureaucratic system. . 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.. policy. 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. Article 3. Recopilacion de las Leyes. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the Central American federation and its state governments followed a similar. 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. the ANC opened municipal status to any town with as few as 300 inhabitants. city authorities—whether the full-fledged city councils of the Spanish and Creole cities. the republic o f cities maintained important functions. Book 1. immediately increasing the 4 8 Menendez. Adapting the laws o f the Spanish constitutional town council..

12. Art. Guatemala. In 1832. 73. Article 163. El Salvador lowered the number o f residents required to form a municipalidad to 200 “souls. the trend was to continue to expand such municipal government. 50The ANC decree o f 10 May 1824 determined the size o f the town council depending on population: less than 300. 73.50 El Salvador’s first constitution established that towns with 500 or more souls {almas) would retain their municipalities. Art. Section 2. Constitution. whose elected justices only had functions as intermediaries between Indian residents and Spanish governors in tribute collection and incarceration of local lawbreakers. Constitution o f 1825. In the 1824 Constitution. In the early years. El Salvador. . 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. 5 1 El Salvador. 4 September 1832. Art . Chap. Articles 161-162). Constitution o f 1825. Title VTII. Decree. 300-500. In the colonial period. a village needed 500 souls (almas) to merit a municipalidad. Guatemala in 1825 and El Salvador in 1832 set the minimum population for a town council at 200 (Guatemala. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51). Honduras. 10. Chap. a number too large for Central America (Article 310.”53 Whereas in the colonial system a hierarchy divided settlements with self-government on economic and social importance as well as ethnicity of residents. 12 October 1825. 1824. 16.51. all municipal posts continued to be elective. 83. Section 2. Chap. No 60. Constitution o f 1825. and between 500-1000. 52 Honduras. Art. as did Honduras’. 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. 1812).5 1 Guatemala authorized municipal status to places with 200 residents. El Salvador. Art. 53 El Salvador. Chap.number of self-governing communities by a factor o f ten. Chap 2. each state authorized municipalities to name an “auxiliary mayor” {alcalde auxiliar) to govern smaller populations. Constitution Politica. only Spanish towns had the right to a real town council (ayuntamiento) while Indian villages could have a comun del pueblo. 4 September 1832. Art. The Spanish constitution system had set the minimum population requiring a council at 1000. 82. Art. 12. insisting that both urban and rural communities be attended to (Title 8. Consitution o f 1824. Where a population was too small. 374 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 10.52 In all states.

Yet. . 5-12. only an executively-appointed governor stood between them and their state and federal capitals. as in the Spanish colonial system.54 Not every community was ready for or desired the responsibility and honor o f a full-fledged local authority. 24 April 1839. and. in the Indian pueblos o f Cahabon and Lanquin who could read and speak Spanish. City councils also retained undisputed charge o f the interior government of the towns. and had spent the funds they had collected for the war tax (subvencion de guerra) rather than turning it over to him. But the unwilling judge reported back that the municipales o f the towns were inebriated.settlement to have a full city government. and repeated pushes were made to ensure that city councils took office. Gefe Politico Arriaga de Verapaz al Congreso de Gutemala. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The congress was concerned that the district’s election had been falsified. Over Cruz Lopez’ protests. Municipal authority overall remained strong not simply because more city governments existed in Central America in the 1830s than the 1810s. The governor o f Verapaz reported to the Guatemalan congress in 1839 that there was only one ladino. Ensuring that it was effective was another. the official policy was to create a state in which most communities were self-governing. Expediente 942. Jose Cruz Lopez. The reformed constitutional council retained its 54 AGCA Cl Legajo 38. ff. Establishing municipal government was one thing. The changes that independence brought to the composition o f principal city councils are discussed at the end o f this chapter. given that the town councilrs were drunken and did not understand Spanish. through the 1830s. the governor had named him judge and enjoined him to communicate decrees and orders from the government. 375 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.

Exp. Lambur. Exp. if the theory o f citizenship was set out in state and national constitutions. maintenance o f prisons and hospitals. 1569. if any. Quinones. Leg. Article 169. mayors and syndics continued to be elected annually while aldermen served for two years each. 59 El Salvador. see AGCA C l. and supervision o f local elections. Arrivillaga. reports on vital statistics. B Leg. insurance that debased coinage did not circulate. 708. the practice of citizenship was policed by the city and town councils o f Central America. Cordova. 1569. derived from the colonial system. While requirements for and o f municipal government were originally mandated by the ANC. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Andrade. and after 1847. Leg. 23 July 1823. Exp 4152. Samayoa. Barberena."51 In practical terms. the government of Guatemala reduced the ability to serve in councils to those who had already been municipales. Article 59. Decree. 9 November 1825 (Reglamento para el Gobiemo de los Departamentos). and Pavon. 39-47. Between 1839 and 1845. AGCA C l. 56. such as road building. vaccination and water supply. Guatemala. this meant that the council kept its traditional responsibilities: tax assignment and collection. funding and supervision o f education and public works projects. As in the past. Title 8. Decree 50. Santa Cruz. 1845 repeal o f the law.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. 1825. 192. Exp. 57 Constitution o f the State o f Guatemala. 2 October 1839. with half replaced in any given year. 39-47. See AGCA B 1 Leg. For a clear expression o f this mle. More than half of the Guatemala City ejido rentals in 1835 went to municipales and their relatives. 58 For example. Pinol. 15677 for the 20 Sept. Dardon. and military recruitment. specific responsibilities and organization were legislated by the separate states. 2 October 1839. . Batres. Families that benefitted included: Salazar. Section 2. 55 ANC Decree. 376 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Echeverria. Bolanos. but this restriction was the exception rather than the mle. the post-independence municipality’s responsibilities included maintenance o f a list o f citizens eligible to vote. control o f certain assets led to profit. the Guatemala City council members continued to have an unusually high share of ejido assignments. 56. ff. Guatemala.authority as the principal secular institution in each town o f the republic. administration of town lands (ejidos ) and marketplaces. Families receiving access to these lands in 1840 included: Aycinena. and Expediente 15678 for its reinstatement on 16 November 1847.59 In other words.58 In addition. Herrarte. 4 September 1832. Decree 50. Decree 67. administration o f justice and health. 50 As under the Spanish constitutional system. Valle. ff. See AGCA B Legajo 715 Expedientes 15976 (1835) and 16036(1840).

62 In Tegucigalpa.City councils also maintained an important role in the military organization o f each state. it was also the municipal council that took charge of recruitment.61 Later. the town council of Sonsonate was ordered by the Salvadoran government. Caja 169. In August 1823. Captain Dionicio Gutierrez was selected as captain o f the city’s second company. Fondo DP. as the federation and individual states each sought to muster up men to fight in the numerous confrontations between cities. 18 February 1826. according to a law o f 13 January o f the same year. the governor approved the selection. for example. and to elect officials. 1826. On June 2. convoked its citizens to form military companies and enlist soldiers." By 20 July. 1821-9. May 31. 1826. the town learned that many had deserted. Nonetheless. and recommended keeping them in Comayagua. and states. 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. despite protests by some o f the mothers o f those "apprehended. District military commander authorized the council to draw on other villages if the city limits did not produce sufficient men. Caja Actas Municipales. 1826. Libro de Actas de Cabildo. . per the ANC decree o f 18 August 1823. in kingdom capital Guatemala City and elsewhere. in the days and weeks after independence. the ANC instructed city councils to begin to form militias. 61 See Chapter 6. In this case. 1826. 377 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Honduras. Libro de Actas.63 60 ANH. There. it was the council that was delegated to enlist soldiers and to name sergeants and cabos. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. regions. 62 AMS. 63 AMT. it was the cabildantes who organized military enlistment in preparation to repel either Mexican or Spanish invaders. Tegucigalpa.60 So. In 1826. city councils continued to be the principal recruiters o f militias. to convoke the local peasants (paisanaje) between 18 and 45 years o f age to form the companies of the militia (legion militar). 99. No.

. Guatemala City's ayuntam iento had proposed various similar projects in 1811. Libro de actas. 865. but state governments had a difficult time enforcing the ANC’s liberal ideal o f separation o f 54 Alejandro Marure. finally acting on recommendations and projects advanced by city councils from the 1810s. Expediente 1128. passing legislation that either urged or required lighting in specific towns. 1-2. Leg. For the 1840 establishment of lighting. City lighting projects followed this model. capital o f Honduras.65 Tegucigalpa. towns and villages could establish lighting on request but were not forced to do so. Bando del ayuntamiento sobre alumbrado publico. ff. 65 Ysidro Menendez. The decree called for the governor or mayors to designate the places to site the lamps (Article 3). Law 2. pp. Tegucigalpa. 1648. 5 December 1841marked the day the lighting became effective. 1967-1969. 25 April 1843. 14 August 1843.. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1811. technical innovation often began with a project in the state capital.Since no public works infrastructure existed outside the municipal sphere.. Book 4. Although congresses assumed the role o f instigators o f innovation. According to Marure. Each municipality was to select one o f its members to ensure all provisions were carried out (Article 9). 1837. Artss. See Chapter 3. B78. 1818. Exp. 1824. Title 5. 1. 3545. see AGCA B78. when a congressional order decreed it. and Law 3. AGCA A1. 21230. R ecopilacion d e la s leyes. Art.64 This novelty spread slowly throughout the rest o f Central America. and later allocated additional taxes. No. p. By 1843. the government had determined to use a tax on each head of cattle slaughtered in the city to fund the project. 1818. Law 1(7 October 1840). “ Reglamento.50. R ecopilacion d e las leyes.2 Legajo 2194. 1859. Exp. 1& 12.6. Leg. did not receive public lighting until 1859. Book 4.50. Menendez. AGCA A 1. 627.3. Expediente 15747.66 Attempts were made to reduce the city council’s judicial functions. Leg. 2189. . Title 5. El Salvador’s 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 1840.2 Leg. 54. Legajo 44. 12577-12579. Guatemala City established gas lighting in the early 1840s. A l. Exp. f!76-77. B78. 123. 18 in A n a les. 1821. 378 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 5456. E fem erid es . 152. Leg. Alumbrado Publico. it remained up to the towns themselves to fund and carry out any project.2. This tax is the same kind instituted by the Bourbon city councils to meet their needs. 15737. and only subsequently was promulgated for the rest o f a state. 78.

removing the judicial functions from the mayor (alcalde ) o f each town. Constitucion de El Salvador. . Further reproduction prohibited without permission. footnote 29. In El Salvador. 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. However. Art. Overall. . the 1824 constitution left the mayors in charge o f justice until the 1850s. Some o f the state governments attempted to establish a system o f local judges (jueces de primera instancia. 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. jueces de letras). 379 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. (Chap.67 To take just one instance. Menendez. a combination o f confusion on implementation. Menendez cites a legislative decree o f 9 December 1854. the government revived the colonial term for governor (corregidor) and restored the mayors’ function as administrator o f justice. VIII. 9. The 1825 Honduran constitution called for establishment o f ju e c e s d e la instancia. Its report called on the government “to return their influence to the municipalidades. (ANC.for they are the most 6' Less than six months after establishing the judges. p. when civil judges ( ju e c e s d e p a z). 60. on the grounds that the system had never functioned adequately and had confused the people. Chap. R ecopilacion d e las L eyes d e E l Sa lva d o r . but also noted that in the “p u eb lo s en p a rtic u la r ” mayors would administer justice. took over responsibility for even the least important verbal and conciliatory cases (juicios conciliatorios y ju ic io s verbales). 59. 188. 66 & 68). 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). As part o f a process designed to restore order. 23 December 1823). Art. 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. Decree.judicial and executive power. but the cities and towns o f Guatemala. the focus o f the restored order was not the governor.. 57.

52-54 regarding municipal and mayor roles. the place where citizenship would first and most explicitly be exercised.important institution on which a representative government can be founded.. 355. Report of the Commission for Provisional Organization o f the State. Order 58. San Crsitobal Palm. Legajo 56. ayuntamiento and je fe politico represented the presence of a central authority in the distant reaches o f each state. 24 July 1840. f. 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. Because o f the department of Guatemala's large population. Final version. the Spanish-American elites. Pavon and Vidaurre all held office in Guatemala City’s m unicipalidad. AGCA C l. 2 October 1839. Expediente 1569. Andreu. although still considered part of the department. This district would be politically independent from Guatemala. San Miguel Petapa. 4v. ff 39-47. often drawing them from the same group as before independence: wealthy and politically connected creoles. 68 AGCA C l. enhanced municipal power.7 1 Together. Expediente 1569.. the city council. remained an important judicial functionary in the new system. The drafting commission was made up o f Andres Andreu."69 In brief. See particularly articles 41-46. in Gallardo. 6 November 1839. . P rocesos E lectorates y C lose Politico en la Federacion d e C entroam erica. with the power to resolve local disputes and the function o f gatekeeper who stood between individuals and state judicial authorities. ' 1Replacing the colonial governor. the je fe politico was the state government’s mouthpiece in the countryside. except in one instance. the assembly issued an order (No 58) that authorized a teniente corregidor for Amatitlan. 27 July 1839. as well as their anexos. Old and new responsibilities reinforced the municipalidad as the core institution o f the political system. an Orantes. Each state executive branched named its governors. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In practice. Legajo 56. Manuel Francisco Pavon and Francisco Vidaurre. 53. 380 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. See Appendix K. except for a departmental governor (jefe politico. 1810-1840 . the decision o f the Guatemalan government not to authorize lieutenant governors (tenientes corregidores). Alejandro Marure.”68 A similar move to restore the functioning o f city government occurred in El Salvador in 1840. Article 8. p. 70 Avendaiio R. Santa Ynes Petapa and Villanueva. f. adopted as decree 50. jefe departamental) city government represented the only political institution present in most Central American towns. and particularly the mayor. 69 Legislative Decree. Las constituciones d e E l Salvador .70 In fact. since a district governor with no staff would be required to rely on municipal action to do his job.

20. after a sojourn in the United States. He reasoned that a community with the authorization to elect not just its municipal councilors. Otras Reflexiones. and supervising municipal judicial functions. with military governments naming military officers to the posts. The Salvadoran law defining the responsibilities o f governors and municipalities stated the relationship between the two most clearly.As in the colonial past. and combining political with military functions. keeping public order. The difference was that locally-elected political chiefs employing the same fiat that had previously been exercised by the Spanish king. . Mariano Aycinena argued that as executive appointees rather than locally elected officials. It was not until the 1830s that Mariano Aycinena. but the theory was otherwise. but deputies to congresses and presidents should elect its own governors. 4 September 1832. denounced the practice as anti-democratic and unjustifiable. Decree. In El Salvador. However. and maintenance o f order (El Salvador 72 [Aycinena]. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. no executive was willing to alter the system. Art. with the governor’s position serving as the only executive appointee in extensive territories. tax and statistics collection.”72 This was at times an accurate reflection o f the reality o f the governor’s position. at least. the executive branch appointed governors to reside in each department capital. In the 1830s. 381 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 2). “the governors will be organs of communication between the Executive power and Municipal Councils” (El Salvador. Nationally appointed governors continued in Guatemala. p. the governor’s principal statutory responsibilities were limited to circulating legislation. these men “helped intrigue in elections and serve as instruments o f the [chiefs o f state’s] blind ambition. until well into the 20th century.

179. in addition to civil authority. Article 13). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. “The State. 382 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.74 The legislation granting broad powers to town councils. In addition. Art. In Guatemala. dividing political and economic command from that o f the military. In times o f war or unrest. who. Constitution o f 1840.73 Essentially. however. Art 3. R ecopilacion. calling on the new 3 Law o f 15 May 1839. in Menendez. and excised military responsibilities from the governor’s role. the governor played a more active role although most o f his responsibilities continued to hinge on a town’s doing its job correctly (Guatemala. but it would be the town governments that would carry them out. 9-11). assigning them to the immediate supervision o f governors and the helping hand o f the priest gave local authorities significant autonomy. 9 November 1825.1832. ed. p. 2. Michael Peter Smith and Thomas Bender. These local authorities returned the favor. Volume 7. C om parative urban a n d com m unity research. 4 See Jordana Dym. HI Salvador at least had learned from experience the “dire” consequences o f combining political and military in one man. 2000. they also entrusted the priests who lived and worked in the countryside with complementary attributes. the City and the Priest: Political Pariticpation and Conflict Resolution in Independence-era Central America. Decree 67. 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.” C ity a n d Nation: rethinking identity a n d po litics. Authorities in the Countryside: State-building from below As discussed above. the governor was often a military officer. By 1839. . supervised the organization o f militias and served as the first line of defense against outside invaders and internal uprisings. 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 increases. legislative and judicial branches to mediate in local conflicts. There may be correspondence between towns and central government on issues unrelated to clerical administration. . state identities. many wanting to fill a vacancy in their parish. the documents for 1821 begin with September 15. First. I have only a partial listing o f cases from the Index. or independence from Spain.b This set o f documents will not provide information on cases in which church authorities either were not involved or informed. and thus the number of cases within this archive could in fact be somewhat higher. In the third period. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. rather than January 1. In the first two groups. and one third from town councils. I write “at least” for several reasons. the number o f letters from the governors remains small. The close cooperation between civil and secular authorites that I will demonstrate later on 383 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. in which neither side enlists the opinion or support gf the church. more than half originated .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. and settled back to around 120 in the period 1831-1836. the cases are taken from complaints directed at or passed to the archdiocese in Guatemala City. once again underlines the key nature o f municipal government and identification within the Central American political structure. which appear not to involve a dispute with local authorities. Second. local authorities used the traditional appeal to national authorities to reconstitute and reimagine themselves. 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. But. which itself overlooks and miscatalogues a small number of documents. the number doubled to 160 in the turbulent civil war period of 1826-1830. I believe that most cases in which a priest was even peripherally involved left traces in the diocesan archive. In these cases. This section. about two thirds o f the letters are from priests. which shows the process o f state formation from below. and thus only cases which involved secular and religious authorities are counted. .republican executive. Third. Between 1823 and 182S alone. with just a couple each from the department chiefs. I also don't include within the account cases classified in the index as priests seeking guidance or authorization on purely ecclesiastic matters. 163 for the years 1826-1830. almost half o f the letters are from towns. both reinscribing a Central American identity and creating. 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. or accepting.s The Index o f Ecclesiastical Correspondence for 1821-1825 lists at least 85 letters and cases. and 122 for 1831-1836.

with town councils (21). they wrote to the Asamblea Nacional Constituyente (ANC). 3 1823. and governors only two. the Indian municipality o f Huehuetenango (Guatemala) echoed the Salvadoran towns’ language and tactics in December 1823. write the ANC It was not governors or priests. 17 AHAG-C. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. There seem to be no cases in which individuals brought plaint on their own behalf in the ecclesiastic archives. 288. Municipalidad de Titiguapa al Arzobispo Casaus y Torres. There were two grounds for appeals in all periods and by all appealers: politics and economics. and thus. a reported liberal in favor o f implementing constitutional reforms. and return their former clergyman. Letter. eight started with a priest’s request. priest of Huehuetenango 384 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Sept.. 8 AHAG-C. concerted reaction from the capital after consultation between church and state. The rest were filed in the decade between 1826 and 1836 and included all by judges and governors. 21 December 1823.) Bernardino Lemus. when they could get no backing within El Salvador in their request to oust their current priest. a written church record. twelve occurred in the first two years after separation from Mexico (1823-5). This is what the Indian municipalities of Sensuntepeque and Titiguapa did in 1823. City and State: When in doubt. but town councils that wrote most frequently to the capital requesting intervention in local affairs. accused o f supporting Mexican imperialism.78 suggests that conflict in the countryside brought swiff. T l/1 10. O f these cases. 285. Judges initiated three. 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 department’s separation from Guatemala. .77 Following the same route to authority. Legajo de documentos sobre Presbitero (Pbro. T l/1 10. No. Leap-frogging over intermediate authorities in the years immediately following independence. No.

No289. This letter brilliantly showcases the tenuous quality o f the early republican governments the towns were dealing with. Sacualpa. Pbro. Francisco Paz. “Why. towns would write to the ANC even if the government. November.” the municipality asked the ANC 9 AHAG-C. was not the only justification for a demand to the ANC. Sacualpa’s Father Manuel Cabrera stood accused o f bad temper failing to administer the sacraments to his parishioners. ranging from conducting forced marriages. The “members o f the corporation o f the municipality o f Chinameca. In a case from July 1823. In some cases. Priestly failure to properly administer a parish was also accepted by city and state as actionable. because the federal government had declared him an opponent o f the current political system. Legajo de Documentos contra el panoco de Atitan. The Atitan ayuntamiento accused priest Francisco Paz o f a variety o f offenses. father Miguel Alegria. to exacting extreme tribute demands. a ladino Salvadoran town council was not upset at their priest of seven years. to beating the municipales (council members). Ayuntamiento constitucional. both in Guatemala’s highlands.Politics. Two Indian villages. but at his removal from their parish. September. al Soberano Congreso. .” who underlined that they had been newly elected per the sovereign decree of the ANC. however. and not the priest. T l/1 10.79 Both priests’ aberrant behavior was inappropriate for any minister and the accusations did not hinge on particular political leanings. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 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. No. were moved to ask the ANC’s intervention in 1823 not because o f their respective priests’ politics but as a result o f poor ministry. 385 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. had committed wrongs that needed to be redressed. 269. Atitan and Sacualpa.

28 July 1823. as he did. and not spoken in public. 386 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.. and as the general opinion. has he (the priest) been separated from his parishioners? Could it be that he was “imperial. he has also preached that we should be faithful. it was not his but ours. just as he exhorted us to obey that imperial government.. was for the empire. and local agriculture or industry comes from Guatemalan priest Domingo Juarros’ Compendio de la historia de la ciudad de Guatemala (Guatemala. then.[A] 1 1 those who went to those meetings then in those pueblos said that they wanted to join Mexico. 1981). How could our curate not do as he was ordered? . our priest spoke not a single word on the issue. not him [by his removal]..indignantly. What should curate Alegria have done. 8 1 Information regarding town populations. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. T l/108.. The meetings which took place in the cabildos o f Jucuapa and Chinameca took place freely. . and we have rightly been punished.. 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 Alegria’s supposed political inconstancy in a time when the ideology o f the central authorities varied regularly. the social composition of inhabitants. when he received instructions (oficios) from San Miguel to exhort the inhabitants to provide service to that government? If he had remained silent.. When Citizen Gainza circulated an order to all the town councils. reprinted as Compendio de la Historia del Reino de Guatemala. either in public or private. and it was considered a great crime to speak against that government. 1808-1821).. 1500-1800 (Guatemala: Editorial Piedra Santa.80 Chinameca’s plaint is unusually eloquent and coherent.” and had exhorted us to follow that system? Ha! Sir: if he committed this fault. 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. he would have been considered a disturber o f order.. Legajo de cartas de varios. for all the pueblos to say if they wished to adhere to the empire. Even when the opinion o f Chinameca was different.8 1 Yet Chinameca’s fundamental problem was the same as that o f Indian Sensuntepeque: political uncertainty at the top had provided opportunities 80 AHAG-C. and even more. Further. after that it was known that the same Citizen Gainza had declared the union of these Provinces to the empire. and perhaps suffered the penalties others suffered. it had always to follow the system o f San Miguel. submissive and obedient to the Sovereign determinations o f the ANC installed in the capital o f Guatemala.. because force decides: and the bayonets were there and would have oppressed the pueblo if it had opposed them . No 162...

in the years subsequent to independence. these s' AHAG-C. But why would a small Indian village like Sensuntepeque or Sacualpa write directly to the highest legislative body in the land. towns called on authorities in the new political system to respond. o f a priest allied with “antiliberals’' in the town’s political elite. located in the colonial capital. rather than appeal its case through the elaborate hierarchy of officials available. T l/1 10. In Sensuntepeque the town council was brutally replaced through the efforts. as in the case o f Sensuntepeque and Titiguapa. In adapting traditional appeals route to the new political circumstances. State capital San Salvador’s immediate problems with Mexican troops prevented it from taking effective countermeasures. In Chinameca. we were told. Thus. or escalating to it. 387 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. or Spanish court. not a local official. Chinameca’s decision to bring its complaint to the ANC doesn’t surprise. whatever the underlying economic or political causes provoking the decision to address the government. . Yet. the Asamblea Nacional. The audiencia. which not only served but represented the whole federation. Municipalidad de Sensuntepeque a la ANC. the new municipal councils were following tracks well worn by their colonial predecessors. towns from the Guatemalan diocese forwarded their complaints to the newest highest authority. as in the Chinameca or Huehuetenango cases. on both civil and ecclesiastic sides? The answer lies in the structure o f colonial government.for local conflicts to lead to unwelcome changes in authorities at the bottom. No 288. 3 September 1823. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a popular priest was removed for his willingness to support whichever government was in control o f the capital. had served as the appeals court for the entire colony. By either starting with an appeal to the top.

used a combination of colonial-era with republican political vocabularies. one thing did 83 Titiguapa. 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 town’s officials. No 289. AHAG-C. Pbro. often representing Indian communities. . accepted by sending an appeal to the ANC. Other councils. the Indian mayors of Santiago Atitlan wrote as representatives o f the “masses” (comun ) and “sons o f the town” (hijos del pueblo). To establish their own legitimate right to make demands on this new government. Additional research would be necessary to determine whether the mixed language represented a less sophisticated approach. Sensuntepeque and Chinameca are Salvadoran examples o f this. but they themselves drew their authority from the new system. Not only the government. possibly to ensure that all bases were covered in an era o f changing political systems. in which they were already participating through accession to elective office. These councils prefaced their letters with the information that they were ayuntamientos constitucionales or municipalidades.. Legajo de Documentos contra el parroco de Atitan. T 1/110. the Lemus case in Huehuetenango is from Guatemala. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a decision to cover all the bases. The mixing o f language continued well into the 1830s. a nuanced reading o f the political uncertainty at the center. many councils highlighted the fact that they too were part o f the new system. See for example. 1823. while simultaneously communicating that they were unsympathetic to the political decisions made in the capital. Francisco Paz. the 1833 case of the Municipality o f San Miguel Chicaj that wrote as “hijos ciudadanos 388 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. regardless o f the vocabulary chosen. For example. that is the duly-elected bodies that replaced non-elective colonial town councils. or an ambiguous relationship to the change. It is possible that some towns wished both to make use of the government’s authority to intervene. MIn the Atitan case.84 Yet.towns in essence acknowledged the legitimacy o f the new government to administer justice in both civil and religious spheres.

not happen. Nor did their letters to the republican governments emphasize their servitude as vassals. The mayor accused Lemus o f supporting 389 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. No towns wrote to Mexican or Spanish authorities. as experienced by Sensuntepeque and Chinameca. No 285. 1823. 332-333. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the new municipalidades respected the tradition o f unity o f the former Kingdom of Guatemala and the diocese. although some towns. but also to erect a new state. .” Instead.”AHAG-Gobiemo. wrote as members o f “our nation. 21. resorting to a federal power did not necessarily mean identification with the peoples o f the rest o f the isthmus. Miguel Chichaj. Given the disorganized.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. which included both Guatemala and Salvador. in addition to or in lieu o f state authorities. T l/1 10. The Guatemalan highlands had tried to withdraw not only from Central America during the Mexican period. Through appealing to the ANC. 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. f.Vol. 4 Nov. Carta de Ciudadanos de Gueguetenango al Supremo Poder Ejecutivo de las Provincias Unidas del Centro de America. fly-by-night nature o f the early state governments. In the case against Lemus o f Huehuetenango.who live and breathe for the liberal system. like Sensuntepeque. Los Altos (a goal which would be briefly achieved in 1838-9). 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. the “honorable citizens. . 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. 85 AHAG-C.. Carta de la municipalidad de S. Verapaz.

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. at least in certain circumstances. which could keep order in the countryside was not just the goal o f elites in the capitals. In this post-independence period. o f the states of Guatemala and El Salvador. to include their own town. it seems there is only one case. in which the secular authority began an investigation at the same time as the ecclesiastic verification o f charges. Even in this case. however. passed cases involving clerics on to the archbishop’s office to settle. Creating the state within the federation The ANC. in his turn. and did not accept the role o f direct mediator o f local conflicts.belief in a Central American national identity or a rhetorical strategy. Local problems. . the town considers the patria to be the federation and Guatemala the legitimate capital o f the state o f the same name. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. or nation. was not a court. to doubly identify the authority o f the appealing town and the authorities it turned to for help. the assembly forwarded the complaints to the head o f the appropriate state government. the jefe superior. The first enthusiasm for independence continued to support union o f the provinces o f Central America. as well. be they between inhabitants o f one village or between towns within a district. it served just as use o f other types o f republican rhetoric. The project o f forging a state. and a government that righted wrongs throughout. that o f Atitan. In this usage. however. As a matter o f course. For cases from the archdiocese o f Guatemala. Prior to 1830. but one o f the goals those in the countryside apparently wanted for themselves. continued to be brought to the attention o f higher authorities for resolution. 390 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. this was the chief executive (jefe superior).

”87 Yet in the letter. Some towns continued to rely on republican language o f association to attract the desired intervention. rather than colonial or federal boundaries. and the 86 AHAG-C. 391 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. asking to keep its current priest. 289. the Mam municipality o f Tejutla wrote to the Guatemalan government. After all. Pbro. a political break still seven years into the future? Could it refer to the Mam community within Guatemala. 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. 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. The weakness o f the federal government no doubt aided the switch. towns routinely referred their complaints not to the Federal Congress. . In 1831. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the ANC’s successor. Despite an extended civil war fought in Guatemala and El Salvador from 1826 to 1829. but directly to the state governments. there is no referent to what “nation” was meant. The episcopal prosecutor (fiscal) used both sets o f evidence to evaluate the claim and decided to call the Father Paz in for questioning.archbishop’s hands. At the same time that the archbishop named two priests to interview witnesses to verify charges. 6 Mar. “in the name of the nation and for our part. Legajo de Documentos contra el parroco de Atitan. or to the president of the Republic. the state government ordered the governor o f Solola to investigate. and it quickly took root. and political developments had compounded the ambiguity o f its meaning. T l/1 10. and by the early 1830s. appeals by small towns for government mediation continued. Francisco Paz.86 This new procedure instituted by the ANC defined the responsibility for local conflicts as one that was dealt with within state. 1824.

and interference with elections of confraternity officials. 21. 153-155. Carta de los feligreses de la Parroquia de Tejutla. Gob. when a strong liberal regime under reformer President Mariano Galvez governed Guatemala. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The municipality o f Masagua (Guatemala). wrote the state government to seek redress for their priest’s foul language. this was reflected in increased municipal 8' AHAG-G. “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. 194-197. in 1832. ff. V. 1831. They claimed the government’s attention on the grounds that the priest’s disrespect could lead to “ill-fated results” and impair their ability to keep order. Regardless o f which nation the town o f Tejutla claimed to belong to. the state executive in the 1830s continued to refer local demands to the archbishop’s office for resolution. insults to municipal authority. rather than federal ones. By the mid 1830s. Belonging. The shift was not with government processing of complaints. 27 Sept. del Estado. 88 AHAG-G.88 Government mediation and responsiveness. the state it recognized was clearly Guatemala. 8 March 1832. however. then. Like the ANC in the 1820s. V. . could be a condition to ensure that mediation rather than violence would be the strategy of choice elected by local authorities. 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. 392 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. fF. such as those in Masagua. 21. had become the mediators o f local conflicts.specific town in particular? Perhaps most likely. but in how towns interacted with the “superior” authorities: state officials. Carta de la municipalidad de Masagua al Sup.

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 courts referred the case to the central government. Such appeals routes had existed in the colonial period.acceptance o f state authorities at the departmental level as possible mediators.90 In 1834. the town council o f San Pedro Sacatepequez (Guatemala) asked the subjefe politico o f Quezaltenango for help in removing their curate. 393 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. some towns turned first to the intermediate authorities o f jefe departamental and even the ju ez for help. rather than any statutory requirement to report to one or the other. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Exp. 30474. who ordered an investigation. which turned to the archbishop. Subjefe politico de Quezaltenango al Gobiemo (February 1824). AGCA B Leg. the governor forwarded the 89 I found only one case from before 1831. . when it could not get its priest to provide the accounts for the church-building fund. the municipal council o f Salama. In February 1824. but had quickly been abandoned after independence. exceeding its “small faculties. although with a settled liberal government in power in the state capital. In this period. The town appealed to the governor. a Mercedarian friar living in sin with the mother of his two daughters. who put the request into the judicial system.89 The grounds for complaint routed through governors and judges varied. 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. In 1833.” In this case. 1248. asked the governor to intercede. emphasis was on priestly administrative or economic misconduct. 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.

and which laws to implement. 22. 10 January 1834. to the Minister o f Interior ( Gobemacion ). 91 AHAG-G. which troops to send. V. 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. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mariano Trabanino. ff. not the individual. 18-20.92 Even if the departmental authorities did not have the ability or will to resolve the question. From the first days o f independence throughout the turbulent 1830s. . city councils as duly elected representatives of the people had no compunction about directly demanding state or federal government intervention or attention. state and federal governments in a system of mutually constituting appeals. when stonewalled by the accused. What about the Individual? The previous sections discussed the relationship between city. the court. 26 July 1833. V. Although technically under the supervision o f the departmental governors who replaced the colonial governors. which monies to circulate. Carta de la municipalidad de Zacapa al Gobemador departm ental de Chiquimula. 394 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. sent the case to the Supreme Court in Guatemala City. Carta de la Municipalidad de Salama al Gefe departamental. who turned it over to the vicario capitular . 2 1. they appealed to the judge in their cabecera. I have argued that it was the city through its officials. brought the ecclesiastical prosecutor into the case. in turn. city councils met to decide which governments to support. whom they accused of keeping a lover. 338-51. which could demand 90 AHAG-G.9 1 When the Indian community o f Guazacapan had a complaint against their priest. which taxes to pay. f f. The judge. In these sections.

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. Contra el Ale 2o y Parroco 395 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Implicit in this argument is that the city. Caso 3. Escuintla.” Use o f the Spanish word “particular” implies behavior for personal rather than communal benefit. Camara de 2a Instancia. In addition. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Specifically. effectiveness as an agent of social control. individual actors operating within these larger institutions. . Fuentes believed the municipality resented him for using the pulpit to inveigh against robbery. 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. Exp. the previous priest wanted his parish back and was promising Sensuntepeque’s municipales license to take revenge for acts committed during the conflict with Mexican troops in return for their advocacy. 31220. Before turning attention to cases originating with governors and priests. and the fact that the municipality had acted not for the common good. the actual priest o f the parish. not the individual citizen.government mediation because political legitimacy derived from communal and not individual needs. Francisco Fuentes. 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. In Sensuntepeque. a crime the town had quite 92 AGCA B Leg 1282. proved to governmental satisfaction his patriotism. but because o f “intrigues o f individuals (particulares). was the constitutive political element o f the Central American federation.

Echicoyen. [Indian] communities (comunes). Lemus agreed that “[w]hen one sees the representation o f a municipalidad . Two other signatories recanted when de Guasacapan. the letter was not from the municipalidad at all. wrote out and signed the letter. but their very right to appeal on behalf o f the town. 1823. Cura Fuentes al Arzobispo Casaus y Torres & 17 Nov. Most o f the citizens who denounced the priest in the town hall were his relatives: his cousin and his five sons. T l/1 10. Recinos. 7 Sep.”94 A close reading o f the original denunciation reveals the truth o f this assertion. and several nephews. 1824. when one considers that in it echoes all the voice o f a Pueblo. . but from various “citizens o f the municipalidad. Bernardino Lemus.a reputation for committing. Carta." Manuel Recinos. y Pbro E. Although signed by the town secretary. H. his cousin and five sons. 93 AHAG-C. 94 AHAG-C. No 288. Perez. brothers-in-law. A council’s right to aid was not in question. in the municipal meeting room. Huehuetenango’s municipal secretary in 1823.” he demonstrated that in this case.” Instead. it is appropriate to give it all one’s attention at once. the most honorable inhabitants o f Huehuetenango and o f other towns. and submitted as a municipal representation. T l/1 10. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. through fifty-seven testimonies o f “municipalities.93 Similarly. Legajo de documentos sobre Pbro. Cura Fuentes al Arzobispo. as becomes clear in the evidence. “ it was not the Pueblo which accused the priest. priest Bernardino Lemus’ successful defense against charges o f promoting secession challenged not only his accusers’ ideological charge. and o f these.. No 285. most are his relatives. was also the agent behind and drafter of the original complaint. but a few [men] compelled by Recinos. 396 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.

4 Nov 1823. T l/1 10. Bernardino Lemus. Joseph Aguayo. but on the legitimacy o f the accusing municipality. T l/1 10. after he had been elected mayor. like secretary Recinos. the principle that the municipality and not the individual citizen served as legitimator and gatekeeper to issues government intervention in local administration remains unchallenged. Legajo de documentos sobre Pbro. Even when an individual could not get an actual municipality to front an accusation. 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. Carta de Ciudadanos de Gueguetenango al Supremo Poder Ejecutivo de las Provincias Unidas del Centro de America. . Lemus returned to his parish from Guatemala City. These also demonstrate that when not the source o f a complaint that claimed 95 AHAG-C. 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. where he had been called to make his case. 96 AHAG-C. Similarly.asked about their signatures. By this point.96 These two cases are not unique. 397 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 9 September 1824. expropriated and sold communal properties used by the town’s majority Indian population without reimbursing the municipality. bring all the trappings of municipal authority to turn a struggle for personal gain into a political threat to the republic.95 Only in 1824. No 285. over Lemus’ opposition. the municipalidad had little credibility with the government or archbishop. No 285. and the 1824 city council’s objection to the celebration held on his return was ignored. however. In either case. carried the day. was Recinos able to dispense with letters from citizens and send letters from the council. Lemus evidence’ that ladinos Recinos and his ally. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. if well-placed he could.

Further reproduction prohibited without permission. priest o f Asuncion Mita. 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.government attention. 1828. . with the government underlining the need for priestly cooperation with the civil and authorities in their departments. On the contrary. such as the governor. 69. Lemus. Arzobispo al Pbro. Tl/199. Governor and Commander o f the department o f Chiquimula. who summoned Lemus to the capital to present his defense. The municipality o f the town defended the priest. it behooved the governments o f Central America to determine who. When the case against Lemus could not be substantiated. The council even declared that Lemus through his sermons had urged the town’s residents to take up arms to defend the patria?1 The government informed the archbishop. 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. C. No. Colonel Indalecio Perdomo. archbishop and government agreed to the priest’s return. Men of the Council As the Lemus case demonstrates. pointing out that it had been a local family and not the priest who had betrayed the country. After independence. 26 Feb. was sitting on a given town council. Guatemala. 398 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. the municipality could serve as the authority corroborating or denying cases lodged by other officials. 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 Mita’s buried silver to attacking Salvadoran troops. governments wished to know what type of person was making the request on his town’s behalf. in fact.

no As in the colonial period. like merchants Domingo Payes (1822. Taboada. 399 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Umiela. . Julian Villegas 98 Families with at least four municipales in Guatemala City between 1787-1850 include: Aguirre. Najera. Valdes and Yela. Arrivillaga. faded from the rolls. Traditional elite families continued to fill many o f the seats in the former Spanish ciudades and villas. Palomos. Castillo. Palomo.sons o f the Aycinenas. Other families. Beltranena. Beltranenas. and Sonsonate. The first. can be traced in Guatemala City and Tegucigalpa. Aycinena. Pavon. cabecera o f the district of its name within the state o f El Salvador. 1820-1821). The Arrivillaga. Moreno.government positions opened up numerous seats on city councils throughout Central America. The patterns o f post-independence municipal office holding. like the Marticorenas and Manrriques. the last year I examined. Galvez. although not all elite families survived the transition to independence and popular election. 1849-50). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. municipal office also attracted immigrants. Arrivillagas and Urruelas among others—continued to hold many council seats at least up until 1850. but no longer held a monopoly on the elective positions. In addition to traditional sources o f new blood— European immigrants—many 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. Galvez and Najera families are three that participated in municipal politics since the early eighteenth century. The makeup o f the Guatemala City town council between 1825-1850 in some ways resembled that o f the colonial ayuntamiento. See Appendix K. both sometime state capitals. Asturias (Alvarez de Asturias).and second-generation offspring of the Bourbon colonial elite and a few remaining descendants o f conquistadores . Lara. and the correlation between municipales and holders o f state and national office.

1843. The post-independence period saw the emergence o f new families as regular municipal officeholders. Other families 400 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.100 Since the city council continued to oversee the markets. who all were lawyers. Juan and Manuel Dieguez were syndics and aldermen between 1820 and 1849. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1847). 100 See Appendix K. and Damaso Angulo (1835. 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. Tejada into the Oyarzabal family.1 01 In addition to economic and 99 See Appendix K. Jose Domingo. and Cambronero into the Gutierrez family o f Costa Rica. 1850) o f Spain. it is not surprising that land-owning and merchant interests sought to maintain their influence in city government.(1827. 1839. 1 0 1 Andres. Manuel and Marcos Dardon were syndics and mayors between 1836 and 1848. the new arrivals took care to connect to local families in the way their predecessors had. and take charge of militia recruitment and taxation. Most were professionals. the 1825-1850 municipality fulfilled the promise o f constitutionalism and incorporated additional layers of Creole society." The continued presence o f European-bom city councilors after independence. like the six men o f the Dardon and Dieguez families. 1840-41. 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. Jose Maria Cambronero (1826-1827) Eusebio Tejada (1827). Certainly. administer justice. Angulo married into the Urruela family. . While continuing to include members o f the merchant and landed elite.

Flores and Larrave. the education level of the council increased after independence. Sixteen o f the 39 would eventually serve in the Guatemala City cabildo. 1813).]. 10 4 It would require an examination of the casta baptismal records for early nineteenth century Guatemala to confirm this hypothesis.102 When one considers that only 39 individuals were registered with the Colegio in 1813. . See Appendix K. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70-2280 Broadsides.103 The influence o f the Cortes of Cadiz and Spanish constitutionalism cannot be overstated. 10 3 John Carter Brown status. 401 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Guatemala.104 with a post-constitutional presence included: Samayoa. 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. Fully 74 municipales between 1821-1850.p. held university degrees or belonged to the newly established lawyers’ association (Colegio de Abogados). from both traditional and new council families. 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. Estrada. Palacios. elite and non-elite electors valued education as a criterion for council membership. I0‘ See Appendix K. Certainly. it is clear that Guatemalans had actively pursued the study o f the law in the years leading up to independence.

S 1820-1832 R 1815.L 1819. 1830. Syndic 1810-1837.1843. 20-21Sec 1849 S 1823 S 1845 A 1845 R 1831-4.]Umv/Cdleg^ier. 1825-28 1821. R. 1825-41A 1822 S 1827 S 1832 A 1830. 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 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. R A 1825-9 R S A 1821 A 1814 A. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.S 1819-22 A 1817-8 R. A 1850-1 R 1823-4S. -1815L 1807 T. 1821*1850 Officeholder ■ ' -V. 1843* 1809 T 1785 F 1804 F. S 1829-43. 1825 S . L -1815 L -1816 L 1793 F 1798 F 1823* 1801 F. R.5: University Graduates and Lawyers. L 1841* 1819 F. A 1825-1829 R 1839S 1849 A 1826 S.R.L -1794 L 1823* -1810. A 1824-25 S Sec. R 1839-1848:A. 1845 A 1820 R 1814-1827.1816* 1803 F 1819 F Prel835 M 1807 F. . 1797C &L 1833. . -G G Senice. S. v Origin ■ Costa Rica? Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala . S. Guatemala City Council. S 1811-14. A. M -1 8 1 4 . A -1814. 1808 L 1843* 1813 F. R. 1805 L 1794 C 1809 F 1818 C. 1826 A 1832-3. A 1820-1826 S 1826-31.R 1831. S. Abosadoc? 1810. 1818* -1800 M 1818 F. F .1813M 1794. 1810 M 1820 C & L 1818 C 1813 F -1825 M 1800 C 1810 F.Table 7. 1849-50 A 1847 A 1821 R 1827-1839 R. 1857R 1820-1838.F.

1848 1808* 1845-6 S 1849 R 1843* 1800 F. 1798 C 1824. 1820S 1812* 1831-1841. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Alcalde (Mayor). A.5: University Graduates and Lawyers. 1820R 1794 F. 1810 Dr T & L 1849 A 1813 F . Guatemala City (cont. C = Sacred Law.. 1750-1821. * year of entry into the Colegio de Abogados. Bachelor in: L = Law.-1817 L 1827 S 1839-40 R 1819 F.1847R -1825 L 1809 F. 1794 C 1797 L. R . Abogados examinados en la Real Aud. . A1 Leg.Table 7.1819 L. 6940. 57773-57779.A. 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. 1809 T 1838-1848.1822* 1846 R M 1818-1840 A R 1803 F. Sources: AGCA A I L 2756. Exp. del Reino de Guatemala(l 801-1861). A. GC Service: A . E 23814. Indice de los grados de Bachiller conferidos.) 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:. T = Theology. 1822* 1823-1846R S A 1810 F . A=Arts. R 1806 F. 1823* 1814. ~ Abogados* '= 'r^ 1814.Regidor (Alderman). F = Philosophy. 403 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1804 L 1821 A 1836 R 1833* 1823-1838. 1818 C 1821 R 1824 S 1821 L. S 1849* 1 8 3 4. 1808 L 1822-1842 R. S 1819/1821L. S=-Sindico (Syndic). S. M = Medicine. 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.R 1835* 1849-50. 1824* 1829 R 1830 A 1818 C 1833 A 1818 L 1844-5 S 1843* C ^ S a yice .

a miner and a banker (prestamista).107 The local communities clearly saw benefit in making use o f the expertise o f foreigners. If Guatemala City still maintained its commercial and regional ties > os These Tegucigalpa families included the: Alcantara. Save and Varchand were French—not just from Spain. Campo. Contreras. Guatemala.106 Although they were fewer in the provincial cities. Rascon. Rosa. 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.and post-independence municipalidades. can be traced to a Spanish immigrant of the early nineteenth century. 235-249v.or second-generation offspring o f Spanish municipales o f the early nineteenth century. continued to be elected to municipal office. In both Tegucigalpa and Sonsonate. the Alcantaras in Tegucigalpa descended from Jose Alcantara who came to Central America in the 1770s. many families that survived the split represented the first. 1841. there were some important distinctions. 107 Tegucigalpa. regardless o f the foreign residents’ desires. raised his case with the Salvadoran foreign ministry. foreigners such as Jose Ferrari and Estevan Guardiola in Tegucigalpa and Bertrand Save and Guillermo Varchand in Sonsonate. pp. Cuellar. However. 1840. Trigueros and Villavicencio families all had members on both pre. Some families. Pedro and Rafael Campo y Pomar o f Sonsonate were sons o f Pedro Campoo y Arpa. 1843. Mendez. Rivas.A similar pattern o f traditional and innovative municipal officeholding emerged in smaller towns. Volume 2 :1844-1845. Mahelin and Huet. 404 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. because he risked losing his French citizenship by serving a government post in El Salvador. Ferrari. 106 For example. Libro de Cabildo. Urmeneta and Yrias. naturalized as a Honduran citizen to serve on the city council. Lardizabal. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres (Paris). Two French consuls in El Salvador. See Appendices L (Tegucigalpa) and M (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. Save preferred arrest to taking office as mayor of Sonsonate in 1841 and 1844. . the Angeles. even when they did not want to be. In Sonsonate. like the Alcantaras and Landas. Borica. Sosa. Lozano. Fiallos Landa. Ugarte. Correspondance Consulaire. a Spanish merchant who had previously been both alderman and mayor of Sonsonate.105 Once again. like Honduran capital Tegucigalpa and district cabecera Sonsonate. Mencia. Midence.

Gutierrez. that they were o f casta heritage. Rivas and Vega families only served in the constitutional councils of 1812-1814 and 1820-1821 before independence. Castro. Gomez. Gutierrez. Davila.with the Spanish homeland.109 In Sonsonate.e. Even more than in Guatemala City. They went on to serve in multiple positions after 1821. suggesting that they could only be elected under constitutional rules. that they were o f casta heritage.e. Gomez.11 0 Additional evidence that upwardly mobile castas made their way into provincial city councils can be found by examining the professions they exercised. suggesting that they could only be elected under constitutional rules. confirmation of these hypotheses would require an examination o f baptismal records. i. and Vega were new. 109 Gutierrez was mayor in 1822. Cea. In Sonsonate: Angeles. 110 See Appendix L (Tegucigalpa). the new municipales were likely to be in the trades rather than in 1 0 8 In Tegucigalpa. Arauz. Laynes Moncada. and Zuniga. 1825 and 1834. Juan Santos Gutierrez. See Appendix M. Huezo. Soto. the new families included: Bustillos. . Reyes and Ugarte families in Tegucigalpa shared this experience. The Chotos only joined the council in the 1830s. In Sonsonate. Arauz. the Angeles. 405 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. however. 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. In Tegucigalpa. the Angeles. new families rose to occupy numerous city council seats in the decades following independence. The Estrada. Arauz. a mulatto whose seat on the city council of 1817 was challenged because of his ethnicity.108 In Sonsonate. Rivas and Vega families only served in the constitutional councils o f 1812-1814 and 1820-1821 before independence. and alderman in 1832. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. See Appendices L (Tegucigalpa) and M (Sonsonate). Reyes. went on to be elected once as alderman and three times as mayor between 1822 and 1834. for example. Cea. i. Estrada. Choto. Cea. Cubas. Again. Galindo. the provincial capitals proved welcoming territory for men with no initial connections. Cerrato.

which. his wife and children. Dionicio Gutierrez.” suggesting their m ulatto origins. one should not believe this to be so. 1 1 3 AGI Guatemala 501. 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. Censo fo r m a d o d e orden d el N oble A yuntam iento d e esta villa d e Tegucigalpa. and most were elected in the 1840s. only the first 19 were in the p la za m ayor. With one exception. carpenters. Juan Angel Rosa (104) and Miguel Laynes (106) were shoemakers. Most are creole families. See Appendix L (Tegucigalpa) 1 There were fourteen tailors who served in the town council between 1821 and 1850. perhaps do not merit this distinction. 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. and other laborers lived in the houses from 100 onwards. fifteen were or had been members o f the city council before 1850. ironworkers and laborers. residents with “don” (honorific signalling membership in the Spanish elite) became scarce.1 1 1 Most were artisans—tailors. for the Honduras governor who wrote the report suggested that many Spanish families were not as pure as they pretended.. Published in RABN. O f 49 capitalists (capitalistas) listed in an 1860 census o f Tegucigalpa. d e su s v e c in o s y havitatttes con expresion d e su s edades. and by the 80th house. and Juan Gomes (280). 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. P oblacion d e la s P rovincias d e H onduras. albanil). An 1801 census established that there were at most 86 Spanish (white) families in Tegucigalpa and 507 ladino (mulatto) families. a tailor. it is not surprising that upwardly mobile castas would make their way to the city council. shoemakers. Matricula de 1801. if one seeks out their origin. however. 110). carpinters. did not receive the honorific. Rafael Cubas (111). including Secundino and Nicolas Bustillos (139). y n o ta s. . 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.. com enso en l o d e enero d e 1821.113 This is not to say that the merchants and miners. O f 488 houses surveyed in the census. and their relatives. Dionicio and Crecencio Cubas (102. governor. and Roque Bustillos (209) and Justo Gomes (201) were blacksmiths (herrero. Ramon de Anguiano. and did not have the honorific “don.112 Given the population distribution o f the town." 406 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.. was. Guillermo Davila (109) and George Laines (114) were among five carpinters. the only “Don”and lived in house 64. the tailors. vanished from the town council. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.professions such as law and medicine that required university training.

the city government had compiled a list o f 1327 proletarios as well. the tw o thirds o f the most important merchants and bankers of Tegucigalpa had thought municipal office a worthwhile endeavor. Furthermore.. political and cultural centers in the colonial period—were the lawyers. landowners and other professionals whom presidents selected for their ministries and whom both small and large towns elected to national office. who formerly had not been able to aspire to such office.. The report indicated that in addition to the list o f 49 capitalists. 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. Simply. For the same men in demand as mayors. military and government offices..” Revista del A rchivoy Biblioteca Nacionales de Honduras.con expresion de nombres y edades. miners.11 4 Or. 407 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.. 24. 47-8. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 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. Vol.least another 8 were sons and or brothers o f municipales. 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. sixteen o f the 25 capitalistas living in the city center fell into one o r the other o f these categories. alongside the town’s artisans. pp. there was a strong correlation between holding municipal. syndics and aldermen in the principal cities and towns o f Central America—the same dozen or so urban centers that had served as economic. As in the colonial period. State and Federal Government After independence. doctors. City. in other words. .

p. B7 Leg. R evista d e la A c G uatem alteca d e E studios G enealogicos. H eraldicos y Historicos. “The Central American Delegation to the First Constituent Congress o f Mexico. all o f whom represented the most educated members o f society: the priests. Unsurprisingly. like Jose Mariano Galvez. Jose Cecilio del Valle. 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. 3480. 692. 3480. 362. p." R evista d e la A cadem ia G uatem alteca d e Estudios Genealogicos. 408 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. aldermen and syndics as can be seen in the number o f Guatemala City. p. This group included some o f the most distinguished leaders of the period. 1985). p. Sonsonate and Tegucigalpa municipales who held numerous appointed offices (see Appendix S). 550. 81. . B 7 Leg. Nettie Lee Benson. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Efem erides.115 1 1 5 Arturo Taracena Flores. p. and the town councilors. de la Republica Federal. 1822-1823. the lawyers. “Biografias sinteticas de guatemaltecos distinguidos”.government when state or national service was complete or impossible due to a change in regimes. and represented both provincial elites who had made their careers in the capital. Carlos Melendez Chaverri. Many o f the most distinguished politicians o f the early post-independence period had first experienced government as mayors. the cabildantes o f Guatemala City had a significantly higher participation in government than smaller towns. liberal reformer and Guatemalan president from 1831-1838. 222. "Primeras Damas del Reino. but also resident in or near the capital o f the state and federation. author o f the 1821 declaration o f independence.” H ispanic A m erican H istorical R eview 49: 4 (1969). The members o f the mid-nineteenth century congresses and governments o f Central America were o f three principal types. and Guatemalan native sons. Marure. del Estado y de la Republica de Guatemala. like Jose Cecilio del Valle. Ramiro Ordofiez y Jonama. The latter two groups often overlapped. Lista de los C Diputados del Congreso Federal del aiio de 26. as their residents were not only the wealthiest and best educated. 79488. H eraldicos y H istoricos. Sabio Centroamericano (San Jose: Libro Libre. Exp.

Galvez. 3. de la Republica Federal.9. Fechas en que se han tornado su asiento en el Congreso los CC diputados de la legislatura federal de 1831. and member o f the Guatemalan and federal congresses. 1949 Exp. del Estado y de la Republica de Guatemala. Galvez was a judge. 10. See the copy o f Galvez' original baptism is in AGCA. an illegitimate child raised in one o f the city’s foremost families. minister in the Federation. state and federal government posts that was laid out in Guatemala City was repeated in other towns. 1829) congresses. although at a lesser scale. See also Ramiro Ordonez y Jonama. 1836." p. In addition to serving as the president who insisted on creating a thoroughly liberal social. 79530. was thrice elected to the federal congress (1823. Gertrudis was married to Manuel Fadrique y Goyena. They had no other children. He was a member o f the second and third interim triumvirates to govern Central America after the break with Mexico. cabildantes in Guatemala City and alcaldes mayores in San Salvador (See Chapter 1). 1839) and Federal (1826. and died in 1834 just after his election as federal president. . 363. 116 Galvez was left on the doorstep o f Gertrudis Galvez sister o f Manuel and Silverio Galvez Corral.1 1 6 The pattern of men serving in municipal. mayor o f Guatemala for most o f 1821. “Primeras Damas del Reino.Valle. 1836. 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. was a judge in Verapaz and Sacatepequez (1830-1831). represented Central America in the Mexican congress of 1821-1822. Minister o f Government for the Federation (1821. ff. a Spanish coronel who also served as lieutenant alcalde mayor in San Salvador. At least 23 men from the post-independence Sonsonate town council served in either executively appointed office as ministers and governors (jefes politicos. where he also served as Iturbide’s minister of state and foreign affairs. jefes Exp. In addition to being President of Guatemala (1831 -1838). 1828-1829) and deputy in the Guatemalan (1831. political and economic legal system. 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. 13055. 409 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1831) refused to serve as vice-president o f the federation in 1833. Galvez represented the department o f Sacatepequez on the JPC in 1821. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A1 Leg.

respectively vice-chief (1846) and interim chief (1841) o f state. judicial and executive branches o f government provided expanded political opportunities for elites from all regions o f Central America. Manuel Hermerengildo Romero was a Counselor of State (Consejero de Estado). Narrative o f an Official Visit to Guatemala (London: J. Tegucigalpa. Dionisio Herrera moved from secretary o f the president o f both Honduras and Nicaragua. p. District cabecera Sonsonate produced only two executives in El Salvador. Manuel Romero was a respected congressman from Sonsonate. El Salvador. and Pedro Arce. 70. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and judges. 118 Brothers Pedro and Rafel Campo y Pomar were.118 while the municipalidades and capitals of Tegucigalpa and Guatemala between them served as point o f departure 11' George A. and Diego Vigil. who later served in El Salvador’s General Ministry and Council o f State.departamentales) or elective office as chiefs o f state (jefes politicos superiors ). half-time capital o f Honduras. legislators. See Appendix S. . including George Alexander Thompson o f Britain. finally. 1829). who met with visiting foreigners. presidencies of the Central American federation. a San Salvador native and long-time Sonsonate resident and municipal also served temporarily as chief o f state (1841).117 The record o f state and national office holding in these three communities suggest how the republican legislative. Murray. who went from secretary and alderman o f the Tegucigalpa city council to membership in the Honduran government to. and president (1855-1858) o f El Salvador. 410 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. president o f both Honduras and El Salvador. Among the men using municipal positions as a springboard for their political careers were Francisco Morazan. and Costa Rica. Thompson. 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. produced over 50 men who distinguished themselves in state and federation politics between 1821 and 1850.

1827 Chief State.Guatemala. 1833 Acting VP. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1830 Acting PE. 1829 Consejero. Nicaragua and Costa Rica. X. o f State. provis. 1837 Consejero. Ch.. 1821-1850 Municipal Francisco Ferrera Vicente Gomez Dionisio Herrera Jose Justo Herrera Agapito Lazo Jose Antonio Marquez Position/ Year Vice President. 1836-1839 Ho Ho Ho ES Fed Gu. 1826-1829 Jefe Pol.Suplente Sources: See Note 121. 1821-1850 Municipal Manuel Abarca Fco.for almost four dozen men who would go on to be presidents o f the Central American Federation. ES-E1 Salvador.7 Guatemala City Municipales in Executive Office. Guatemala. 1823 Chief o f State. Table 7. 1824 President. El Salvador. 1840s Chief o f State. Ho-Honduras. 1845 President. Pres. 1839-40 President. 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 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1829 Jefe Superior.. 1827 President. 1825 Act. Beltranena Alejandro Diaz Cabeza de Vaca Andres Dardon Jose Maria Cornejo Joaquin Duran Carlos Esquivel Jose Domingo Estrada Jose Mno Galvez Position/Year Consejero.6 Tegucigalpa Municipales In Executive Office. 18371838 Acting President. Table 7. 1831 1“ Chief. 1827-9 Cons.. 1842 Provisional Chief. 1836-8 Acting PE. Int. Jose Francisco Bamindia Jose Luis Batres M.. 1831-1832 State Ho ES Ho Nic Ho Municipal Francisco Morazan Position/ Year Consejero Estado. 1824 Consejero Estado. 1832. CR-Costa Rica. 1838-9 Chief o f State. C Rep. . Honduras. 1839 Vice Pres. 1854 President. 1845 Consejero Estado. * . Nic-Nicaragua. Superior. 1824 Chief o f State. 1829 Chief o f State. 1830 Interim PE. 1856 Consejero. 1829 PE. 1833 Consejero Estado. Aguirre Mariano Aycinena Pedro Aycinena Luis Batres y M. VP. 1830 President. 1825 Chief o f State. 1842 State Ho Fed ES CR Ho Ho Felipe Santiago Reyes Jose Santos del Valle Diego Vigil Consejo Representative.

part-time capital o f the state o f Honduras. 1830-1 Consejero de Estado.. substitute. 1824 Executive (Junta Gub. produced three times as many men involved in regional rather than 412 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1848 Consejero Estado. 1825 Vice President (elected. 1821-1850 (cont. Consult. Ho-Honduras.).) Municipal Jose Farfan Miguel Garcia Granados Jose Antonio Larrave Bernardino Lemus Jose Venancio Lopez Juan Antonio Martinez Position^ear Consejero Estado. 1829 Consejero de Estado. 1821 Executive (triumvirate). CR-Costa Rica.Suplente Sources: See Note 121. 1824.ConsuItativo. 1879 President. 1838 Chief o f State. 1836-8 Consejo Representative. ES-E1 Salvador. did not accept).7 Guatemala City Municipales in Executive Office.Guatemala. 1838-1839 Chief. Nic-Nicaragua. 1837 Junta Gubemativa. 1844-1856 Consejero de Estado. 1834 President. 1849 Consejero Estado. 1821 Consejero Estado. 1831 Vice Chief State. 1853 Consejero de Estado. Cons. 1871-1873 Consejero de Estado. 115. 1829 Jefe Provisional.? 1840s Consejero de Estado. 1834-5 Junta Provs. 1842 Exec. . 1835 Chief o f State. 1835 Auxiliary chief. subst. 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. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1833-4. 1835 Chief of State.. 1833 Pres. 1835 President.. 1832 Vice Pres. int. 1835 Consejero Estado*. 1827-8 Consejero de Estado.Table 7. Power (PE). * . Tegucigalpa. 1824 Consejero de Estado*. Although Tegucigalpa and Sonsonate had approximately the same number o f men on their town councils after independence.

local politics. who also promoted his native state’s Literary Academy (1837) to a university in 1847 and established a Normal School in Comayagua. the seat o f the federal or Guatemalan state government. Guardiola during his presidency (1856-1862) reopened the Colegio Tridentino of Comayagua. established by Tegucigalpa municipal Jose Antonio Marquez during his time as president o f Honduras (1831-1832). 413 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Ho: 1847-1852). Guatemala 119 El Salvador’s university was in part the brainchild o f Honduran-bom president Juan Lindo Zelaya (Sal: 1841-1842.119 The visibility of Guatemala City’s town council as a producer o f politicians is likely due in part to preservation of evidence. mercantile ties to the Caribbean coast. a more dispersed and less unequally prepared set o f elites. economy. among others.htm and -/Joseantoniomarquez.htm. it might be possible to reconstruct a greater part o f the information. Santos Guardiola and Florencio presidentes. . closed by bishop Hipolito Flores. presidents Francisco Ferrera. The capitals o f the other states did not have the lock on education that was Guatemala’s heritage until the 1840s. sent men from most o f their communities to represent those communities in state government. See http://www. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. For the years in which each government published newspapers. And while Tegucigalpa placed a creditable number o f its sons in government. Guatemala—with its large Spanish and Creole population. The academy. Information on members o f the Salvadoran and Honduran congresses is sketchy for these years. Tegucigalpa also was the home of Honduras’ first military academy. a university. there seemed to be no such documents in either the AGN or ANH. with fewer lawyers. Mexico and Pacific—was 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. 120 Although I was able to find attendance records for the federal and Guatemalan congresses in the AGCA./j uanlindo.hondudata. under the auspices o f Colombian coronel Narciso Benitez graduated.120 However. when both El Salvador and Honduras organized universities (in San Salvador and Tegucigalpa respectively). Thus while states like El Salvador and Honduras. 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. the concentration o f education.

Syndic. El Salvador Place o f Origin Sources: See Appendix K.City’s well-educated. 1828 1818 Tegucigalpa. o f Guatemala City’s town council were young lawyers. Legajos 414 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. towns and villages within state 1 2 1 While impressive. For Guatemala. GG j polegiode Abogados* 1806. but more importantly. 1820 Nicaragua Tuxtla. Honduras 1823 1821* Sacatecoluca. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Central Am erica’s states have yet to compile (let alone publish) definitive lists of their early legislative representati-ves and cabinets. 1809-1850 Syndic Alejandro Diaz C. Alvarado took his degree in medicine. It is interesting to note that in the years o f the Cortes. the syndics. Year V-.-' . 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. who were recent graduates o f the university in Guatemala City. and 3480. Honduras 1823. Disarray in Honduras’ archives and destruction o f materials in El Salvador’s were matched by disinterest in Guatemala. Compilations o f constitutions produced lists of deputies for some years. In the Federal archive.or . 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. I did find some electoral records. 194. or lawyers.8: Provincianos in the Guatemala City Town Council. 1809 Nicaragua 1813-1814 1812* 1814. see particularly AGCA B Legajos 84. deep-pocketed and long-standing elites held a preponderance o f state posts.17 Legajo 224. and screening o f deputies by the legislatures. and C l. Honduras 1834* • Santa Ana. El Salvador 1823-1824 1818* Tegucigalpa. El Salvador 1830-1831 1810/1823 1830 Costa Rica 1809 F 1823-4 R Sonsonate. B12. . I do not have complete lists o f congressmen and ministers for any government — state or federation—from 1821 to 1850. *Comejo never finished his studies. attendance records for many years o f the state and federal congress. The numbers o f former municipales from the range o f cities. these numbers are likely incomplete. Chiapas 1809/1812* 1809 1818* San Salvador.1 2 1 Table 7. often from the provinces. and in the years immediately following independence. El Salvador 1823-1824 1804/1807* 1827 Tegucigalpa.

9: Guatemala City Municipales who represented other districts in Congress Congress Verapaz (AL. To list just a representative sample o f Guatemala City lawyers representing other districts in state and national assemblies: Table 7. 111. 1831). 1833) Mariano Cordova Jose Domingo Estrada Verapaz (1839-1842). 1839-1842). Source: See Note 121. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Guatemala’s congress proved the exception rather than the rule as distant districts elected residents o f Guatemala City who had ties in their districts. a compilation o f presidents of the congresses o f 1824-1850 yields a significant participation o f municipales from all over the country. 1853) Manuel Antonio Arrivillaga y Zepeda Totonicapan (AC. Chimaltenango (ANC. but frequently the other areas o f the state o f Guatemala. for all o f their flaws and weaknesses. districts preferred to elect local men to represent them. While colonial 36. 1842) Jose Luis Batres y Munoz Peten (AC. 1829-1830). 1843). Chiquimula (AL. in fact allowed representatives of large and small communities to work together on common political and legislative projects. as in Honduras. Guatemala (AL 1829. 130and 144. The congresses o f post-independence Central America. . 38. 415 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 56. Sacatepequez (AL. and it was these men who often were elected to the various state and federal congresses to represent not only the capital district. While El Salvador does not have a record o f all the members o f its early legislatures. 1836-7) * Guatemalan Congress (AL=Legislative Assembly. Lawyer Manuel Jose Jauregui y Jauregui Jose Venancio Lopez In El Salvador. Solola (AL.Constituent Assembly) unless noted. AC.governments was formidable. as often as native sons. 1840-1842) Huehuetenango (AL. 1823) Buenaventura Lambur Totonicapan (AL. Guatemala’s ayuntamiento was particularly dense in lawyers. 1836) Chimaltenango (AC.

Table 7. numerous smaller towns saw their representatives elevated to this honor. both kinds o f political office attracted the same and same kind o f man. finances. Juan Jose Pineda y Aldafia. and hospitals at home. Furthermore. Jose Maria Cisneros Mariano Prado. San Miguel and particularly San Salvador dominate the presidency. Miguel Elisondo Benito Gonzalez y Martinez.=Mariano Source: Guion Historico. Toribio Lara. Juan Manuel Rodriguez. Mariano Funes * = Lawyer.cabeceras San Vicente. however. Domingo Antonio Lara. 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. *Leon Quinteros. 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. Juan Fomos. that individuals like municipal Jacinto Villavicencio. Manuel Zepeda. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Jose Maria Cornejo. towns were willing to send the same men to represent them in the capital that they elected to administer the schools. Morales Wading. It is equally true.10: Municipales who served as Presidents of El Salvador Congresses. M. M.who initiated the construction o f a new hospital and the restoration of the parish church o f Sonsonate. Clemente Mixco. also sought out the 416 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. *Migue1Mendoza. Manuel Mencia—son o f a Sonsonate mayor—who donated his library to Santa Ana’s municipality. 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. Juan Uriarte. passim. . and Jose Campo y Pomar—brother and son o f Sonsonate municipales.

/ “ Parte: C onstituyentes-L egislaturas. it seems young lawyers practiced their skills in the positions o f syndic and returned as aldermen or mayors later in their careers. taking advantage o f the new citizenship laws to assume municipal positions and to take their place on the political stage. salaried positions from the Spanish crown continued to view the city council as a worthy position. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and bureaucrats—did not appreciably diminish elite interest in municipal government in the chief cities o f Central America. Sinteses Biograficos de su s presidentes. In all cases. Arbitrios q propone el sindico. men of the former castes (castas ) also saw in the city council a step on the path to respectability and power. the same men who once had purchased municipal office to show loyalty and to secure additional. Caja Juzgado 1821-9. the assignment o f marketplaces. 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. Guion H istdrico d e l P o d er L eg islativo d e E l Salvador. the accrual o f access to city lands (ejidos) and city-state relations found that mayor. 1966). passim.. #2. in some cases. it does suggest that the creation of new institutions o f government—presidents.. Rather. . In other cases. alderman and syndic o f principal city councils were still important government posts that provided practical and material benefits. educated artisans took their seats. 1 8 2 2 -1 8 7 0 (San Salvador: Publicacion de la Asamblea Legislativa. ff. 417 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. However.. At the same time. 1011 December 1828. As shown above. Tegucigalpa or Sonsonate. ministers.posts. men who wished to influence taxation.. Jacinto Villavicencio: AMS. congressmen.

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. the continuing emphasis on municipal government led town councils to behave as they had in the past. 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. .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. receded with each civil war that spilled over one state’s borders to involve its neighbors or federal authorities. 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. 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. For the bigger towns. The municipality remained in the 1820s and 1830s the principal political institution in most settlements. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. as political bodies with the authority to take 418 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. If achievement o f the goal creating one Central American people united under the same law. Building the institutions to govern a nation. Another way was to involve small towns in the project o f supporting or rejecting challenges to the new system. 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. the process o f creating states. or at least the inhabitants o f states.

from whether to accept a new state or federal government to whether to withhold or provide taxes or soldiers as required by law. Towns. What we learn from the hiccups. at least at a functional level. For smaller towns. judge and governor. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and between important district capitals. 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. Numerous town councils were established. This retention of the practice o f a city republica helped create a political environment in which civil war became endemic. led to an opposite approach. Over time. governors and priests used the center selectively to achieve certain improvements or advantages in their local environments. from the points where authorities o f the countryside had issues they could not resolve locally. the tension between state and federation. much in the way the Spanish imperial agents had functioned for them in the past. Governors and judges accrued authority and learned to appeal thorny issues. and the municipales elected to office. 419 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. For both executive appointees and locally constituted authorities. is that to a large extent. they learned to identify with state and not national governments. the center continued to serve a purpose. such as local obstruction of justice. invoking their identities as proponents o f new political ways to gain access to services from the central state. or to rid a town or parish o f an unwelcome individual. The smaller towns of Central America sought out state authority as a means to mediate local conflict. . to the supposedly more powerful capital. and even to address their capitals through the state’s local representatives.important political decisions. the grafts o f liberal ideology onto colonial institutions worked.

1 2 3 Domingo Faustino Sarmiento. a state that worked with the church hierarchy to keep the peace between town. 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. The countryside wanted a state capable o f mediating between its local powers. Liberty was a motto taken seriously not just by Central America’s founding fathers. but by the towns and governors o f the new country. 420 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 77. Rural communities had more to offer the fledgling republican governments than challenge through uprisings. governors and priests o f Central America? Looking through the lens o f local. added on top o f political instability. made the living situation unbearable. they wanted the responsibility spelled out in laws and political broadsheets. we clearly see that it was not the colonial state where authority came from outside the territory o f Central America. a political vacuum in which no group or institution could govern.” as Argentine politician Domingo Faustino Sarmiento sarcastically commented. Nor was it a “sovereign state o f every village. Union. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.What state was called back into being by the towns. 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. undertaken in Guatemala and El Salvador only a decade after unwelcome government reforms. governor and priest. Argiropolis ([Buenos A ires]: Secretaria de Cultura de la Nacion : A-Z Editora. 1994). p.123 God. and its senior clerics as well. . a state that lived up to the promises it made in terms o f citizenship and its rights. Uprising was the tool of last resort.

in future. The republic would. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 421 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. the municipalidad o f Central America did experience the reduction in political status that the consolidation o f state government demanded. By the late 1830s. 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. The ideology that a political civilization or community found legitimacy in the city as republic was coming to an end. and for all its administrative.However. . but as a pueblo. however. leader conceived o f their states not as a composite o f pueblos. or people. judicial and political importance the city would in future represent local government in a state hierarchy. or communities. be the state.

Together. and the law. the two institutions convinced the Guatemalan caudillo. But the city council. an examination o f his pupils proved their learning. Crowe resumed his teaching.Conclusion In 1846. had not exhausted its options. . to expel him. Not only did Crowe attract upper-class students to his elementary class and prove English lessons to college students. the Guatemala City ayuntamiento had a problem. City and church combined could still coerce the state. supported by the sternly disapproving church. however. The state justice system supported him.1 1 Frederick Crowe. for their mandate made them responsible for primary education in the city. the minister and teacher was breaking no laws. 1850). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. pp. Part 3. Crowe. Apparently vindicated. 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. The Gospel in Central America (London: Charles Gilpin. were powerless to effectuate his return. The most Crowe’s 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 country’s Caribbean coast. The council was concerned. had powerful allies. They. It determined to shut him down. 552-584. Rafael Carrera. An Englishman by the name o f Frederick Crowe had established a school in their city. 422 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 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 missionary took his case to the Guatemalan courts. When the city fathers still insisted Crowe close his school on the grounds that he was illegally practicing his non-Catholic religion in public. First.

Correspondance Consulaire. Guatemala. 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). had unusual authority but it was not alone. . or fund-raising. like the invasion o f a neighboring state or outside threat.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. from municipal office because serving in a foreign government jeopardized his French citizenship. as the institution o f the city government remained one of three pillars of Central American government. For such citizens who identified with their state and not simply their town of origin would act in concert against an outside threat. It was the 2 Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres (Paris). The city council o f Sonsonate (El Salvador) on three different occasions ignored directions from the state government to exempt a Frenchman. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.2 Indirect municipal power remained intact into the 1840s. Bertrand Save. as capital o f the state o f Guatemala. or cooperation. it had not abandoned the tradition of municipal power. Guatemala City. Volume 2 :1844- 423 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. a concerted move was underway to create a new ideology that moved political identity away from the city or town—beyond the vecindad o f the colonial political system— to the greater society operating under each state’s laws. Yet. over the course o f the tumultuous decades following independence. By the 1840s. it was no longer the pueblos that leaders and demagogues appealed to but to one pueblo in their exhortations for peace. Centroamericanos! Guatemaltecos! Salvadoreftos! Hondureftos! These were the rallying terms. like the American filibuster William Walker in the 1850s.

Honduras. When the Reverend Father Dr. They definitely no longer emanated from a legitimate source o f political authority and no longer received the same negotiated response. 235-249v. Local revolt had been demoted to the work o f “factions. Tomas Suazo. 1845).10. and not their towns. pp.” not towns or peoples. he compared the people of Guatemala to the people o f Israel -a nation. When Rafael Miranda. or otherwise acting.3 Nor was the ideological shift present only in official discourse and documents. SA 3815. Esposicion dirigda al Consejo (Guatemala: Imprenta de la Aurora. 3 Rafael Miranda. El Salvador. 424 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. . but the “pueblos. Guatemala or the Federation who were the subject o f the discourse.. that may elect its rulers from among its own sons. Call No. that had agreed to a pact o f federation. o f Salvador. But Guatemala was “an independent people {pueblo). not towns. . preached the sermon commemorating twenty years o f independence from Spain on 15 September 1841. 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. and no! peoples. Alocucion: Proyecto de Reforma. It was states. But the pueblos he evoked were not the towns that had recovered their sovereignty with independence from Spain. Guatemala—and not their component political institutions or districts that the minister referred to in his speech as fighting. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.” Legislatures represented states. The copy I consulted was in the Harvard-Widener Library.people. or cooperating. Minister General o f the Federation. to give itself laws according to its needs. and with 1845. professor of theology at the University o f San Carlos.[and] the legislatures that represent them. So it was to the states (Estados )— Honduras.

in the same way that out o f five sons o f one mother. however. or state government.respect to its circumstances that a wise and prudent legislator should keep in sig h t”4 The move to associate the citizens o f the state o f Guatemala as a common people. as the official place in which an individual belonged. 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. when association with local agendas led to civil wars and failed to consolidate durable governments. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.P. Seccion Antigua. 425 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. sometime during the debacle o f the 1820s and 1830s. Caja 3 . 1841) 5 AGN. Juzgado de Primera Instancia: Contra Marselio Arriola po r expresiones subversivas. In San Vicente (El Salvador). intangible state. Costa Rica and El Salvador have engaged not to be of the Federation. even the common people had learned to speak in terms o f states and not towns. 1821-1871.”5 Whereas until the 1820s. Correspondencia oficial. 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. . was well underway. San Vicente. a man disaffected with the Federation was quoted as having told his drinking companions on Christmas Day. and politics was lived in terms o f the decisions o f cities. two obey her and three do not. “Boys. regardless o f whether the nation or people imagined was a Guatemalan or federal one. Dr. Fr. the cities m ight have been the “sons” o f the Spanish mother. #22-3. The city as republic had been replaced by the m ore elusive. take more than one generation for the idea o f a truly national political community to permeate Central America. Tomas Suaso. rather than a community o f city-based peoples. It would. the language o f the sovereign town or city ceased to 4 R. don’t be fools. Yet. By the 1830s. by the 1830s the existence o f states as the location o f political legitimacy had been generally accepted. 25 December 1834. The states o f Guatemala.

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. however. we might deem this project. Mariano Aycinena— conservative. Despite the loss o f its status as a republic. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.serve as a rallying cry. mean the demise of the city as government institution. From pueblos to pueblo. 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. 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 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. If the leaders o f Central America wished to abandon a republic o f cities in favor o f a republic o f states. The rise o f the competing national republic did not. has yet to be determined. they nonetheless held fast to the organization o f political community that made all official representation start in a city council. When or whether such a change took root outside the circle o f the men who proposed it. the city and its council would remain the principle administrative unit that linked individual to state. agent or authority. The goal o f subsequent leaders from federalist Morazan to ardent states’ independence promoter Rafael Carrera. for this was the shift in the language they used. . however.

. communities 6 Cited in Ramon A. It is something that. base o f all republican government. learned by tradition and rooted in habit. Mariano de Aycinena. they never doubted that the municipal regime. which is the individual (particular) regimen o f the pueblos— established by themselves. however constituted. has always been felt. 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. a new pueblo might emerge. 74-75 427 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. or municipio was never in doubt. This tension between pueblos and pueblo would inform the relationship between city and state governments. 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. that here we have wanted to follow blindly. was the primary bulwark o f the state. established by use and custom.”6 Since the conquest. or comunidad. Salazar. because [the change] directly attacks the primary base o f the social order. there remained the hope that if the pueblos could fulfill their duties and obligations. attempting to set up a uniform system that the ignorant multitude—over which habit holds the only moral force— cannot understand with ease or rapidity. is to overturn the municipal regime o f the populations. One can see that one should not modify the municipal regime. In the mid-nineteenth century. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. diocese or congress. 1952). (Hombres de la Independencia) (Guatemala: Editorial del Ministerio de Educacion Publica. the public calm is altered. the central role o f the city. pp. and the authority which could speak for a community when it interacted with governor. Yet. evidently. particularly in modem times: when the municipal regime is suddenly upset.One o f the principal defects o f the Spanish Constitution.

a history to suffer a different fate. throughout the nineteenth century. 428 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As Frederick Crowe found out to his detriment. city government had a way o f winning out. and too strong.and their distant leaders. The “base o f all republican government” had too long. .

Fact. Tesoria Rl. estafeta de correos. Admin de Correos (1768). Dip. Fact tab.APPENDIX A Political & religious status of Spanish Cities: Kingdom of Guatemala. Tabacos. Diputado consular. Contaduria Mayor (1771). 50 pueblos in 11 parishes (1526 RO/1528 founded) Capital of Partido in AM S Salvador: 2 villlas. 2 bat mil. of partido & intendancy. 40 pueblos valles & haciendas. (1787-1821). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Casa de Moneda (1731-3).. o Lorenzana Villa Ciudad Pueblo Villa Ciudad Capital of Alcaldia Mayor (AM) (15291786). receptoria de alcabalas. Admin Gral de Alcabala (1763). Estafeta Corrreos. Contaduria. in 7 parishes Capital of Partido in AM S Salvador. w. Dip Cons. Gazeta de Guatemala (1797-1816). from 1787. Tesorero Corregidor. Consular Alcalde Mayor (to 1787). Consulado de Comercio (1794) Sociedad Economica (17951799).admin de polvora. Diputado Cons. Cajas Reales (1587). Admin tabacos (1767) Intendant & Asesor. Diputado Consular. Caja Subaltema. salitre y naipes. Montepio de Afiil (176x). Sacatepequez Institutions Preseat Capt. Fact Tabaco (1767). Admin Alcabala (1763). (1763). Audiencia. Gral. 56 pueblos in 20 parishes Capital of Alcaldia Mayor (1542-1786) Partido & Intendancy (1786-1821). subdel. Dip. 1 vill and 12 pueblos. de tierras. 5 parishes. 1534 plazas (1781) Subdelegado. Estafeta de Correos Subdelegado. Intend. Militia (1781). with haciendas & obrajes 429 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Alcb. Colegiode Abogados(1810) Alcalde Mayor. 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. Factoria de tabacos (1767). . Estafeta de Correos. Cons. 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.

pirate attack.. 6 Villa lugares de ladinos.mulatto carpinters correos Villa Title of villa 1783 (Managua) Ciudad Capital of Gobiemo Estafeta de correos Reest (15657-1821). Caja Rl. 19 pueblos in 6 parishes Ciudad Cabildo exting. reg milicas. milicias. 5 pueblos Villa Capital of Partido. 1789 Ciudad Capital. Gbno. Gbno Honduras Subdelegado. 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. Subdelegado. (subalt. Exting abandoned after Dutch Subdelegado. Villa Comandante militar. Estaf. 17 pueblos Ciudad Capital of Partido in Subdelegado de Int. Admin alcabala (1763).. 10 pueblos Villa Also called: San Jose Villa 430 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1786). Dip. Caja real de int. Auddelos consular. 1643. Correos. milicias Reest Gbno. many valles y haciendas de milicias of 767 plazas Ciudad Capital of Partido in Subdelegado.APPENDIX A (Continued) Political & religions status of Spanish Cities: Kingdom of Guatemala. Dip Cons. Port. Cons. 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. pueblos de indios. Dip. Reest destacamto de cpo vet. port. Estafeta de correos. Confines ( 1542-1549) Factoria de tabacos (1802) Ciudad Capital of Gobiemo (Intendant. estaf. repop. consular. de Com). Subdelegado de Int.767 1812-1821): 1 villa.. Caja real Minas then AM (1580-1788. Estafeta de villa. Real de Capital AM. batallon of 2 villas. dip cons. Tabacos. en 1800 Pueblo (Choluteca) Villa (San Jorge Olanchito) Villa Institutions Present Subdelegado. de correos. Subdeleg. Dip Cons. valles & haciendas. Estafeta de Correos. then Prtido. partido and Estafeta de Correos. consular villa.. of Nicaragua: 1 Admin tabacos (1767) villa. . squadron of caballeria. 13 Casa de Moneda (1780-1795) minerales. 6 pueblos. Fact Intendancy (1787-1821).. 10 parishes Comandancia. diputado (1536-1542). of Nicaragua: 1 of 747 plazas. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Dip. 3 villas. 17 plzas.

SJDD = San Juan de Dios. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. univ. 4 monasteries (D. Diocese of Nicaragua (1531. cabecera of parish. Diocese: Guatemala Valladolid o Seat of Diocese of Comayagua (1561-). SJDD). Cabecera of parish. 60 cofradias. Diocese: Guatemala Austria. Di: Nicaragua Monasteries: F = Franciscan. cabildo eccles. hospital de Sta Catalina. colegio Jesuita. Diocese: Comayagua San Pedro Zula cabecera of parish. monsteries (F. cabecera of parish San Salvador cabecera of parish. convent. Diocese Chiapas (1541-). Nueva Segovia cabecera of parish. F. monastery (F). colegio Tridentino. M. monasteries (D. Diocese: Comayagua San Jorge de Olancho cabecera of parish. Dio: Com. Diocese: Guatemala Frontera San Vicente de cabecera of parish. monastery (M). cabecera of parish. colegio Tridentino. cabecera of parish. 1 monastery (F). Gracias a Dios cabecera of parish. M). monasteries (F. Diocese: Nicaragua Villanueva cabecera of parish. F. SJDD). M. M. SJDD). Diocese: Guatemala San Miguel de la 2 monasteries (F. Comayagua colegio Tridentino. M). . 3 monasteries (D. Ciudad Real de Seat. M). 4 parishes Sonsonate cabecera of parish. 1523-1821 M unicipality Religions Position Guatemala Diocese (1534-1743).. hospital Xeres de la Frontera cabecera of parish. Monastery (M). D = Domincan. (1812). F. F. hospital. Diocese: Comayagua Tegucigalpa Monasteries (F. o Lorenzana Santa Ana Grande cabecera of parish. Chiapa colegioTridentino. SJDD). hospital. cabildo ecclesiastico. SJDD. M = Mercedarian. Diocese of Honduras (1520s-1561). cabecera of parish Granada 3 monasteries (F. Diocese: Nicaragua Rivas cabecera of parish. Di: Nicaragua Villa Vieja cabecera of parish. Diocese: Nicarag. Diocese: Guatemala Quezaltenango Franciscam Monastery. with pretensions to have a diocese. Diocese: Comayagua Leon de Nicaragua Seat. SJDD) . M (2). and then Archdiocese of Guatemala (Santiago)/ (Asuncion) (1744-) cabildo ecclesiastico.APPENDIX A (continued): Political & religious status of Spanish Cities: Kingdom of Guatemala. cabecera of parish. M. Diocese: Comayagua Truxillo en Honduras Seat. 431 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.1821). Di: Nicaragua Cartago cabecera of parish. Diocese: Nicaragua Realejo cabecera of parish. cabildo ecclesiastico. M. Diocese: Guate. monasteries (D.

El Reino de Guatemala durante el gobiemo de Antonio Gonzalez AGI Guatemala 453 and RC Nov 18. 1954). AGCA A1. 1807. p. NJ. Middle American Governors. (Metuchen. Taplin. Titulos de Indias (Valladolid. . 1993).com/enciclopedia enciclo. 1976). Choluteca: . Rivas title. 432 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Exp. Ricardo Magdaleno. honduras/ mapas/municipios/Choluteca/Munidecholuteca. Compendio de la Historia del Reino de Guatemala (Guatemala. Tegucigalpa cedula de ereccion in AGI Guatemala 623.2 Leg. Truxillo (1789): Gonzalez. 1981). 283. passim. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21225.SOURCES Sources: Juarros. 1801-1811 (Guatemala.http: www//2. passim. Bemabe Fernandez Hernandez. passim.

8 RR. Provincial Hdd. AM. Esno publico (Choluteca) GOBIERNO DE HONDURAS 2 AO. 4 RR. AM. . Alferez Mayor. 4 RR. 6 RR **** Alcaldia Mayor TEGUCIGALPA (1768) 2 AO. Alcaldes de SH. esno pub 2 AO. 8 RR. RyDG. AM. AM. AM. Provl de Sta Hdd y 2 ASH. 12 RR. R yDG. Esno pub del cabildo y registros 2 AO. DG (RC 17 July 1768) 2 AO. DG. 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. Esnopub y del cabildo 2 AO. Provincial HDd y 2 ASH 2 AO. DG. Esno 1552 pub y del cabildo 2 AO. Esno publico y de cabilda 2 AO. Esno del Juzgado Mayor y visitas 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.APPENDIX B: Table of Ayuntamientos of Colonial Central America (Kingdom of Guatemala). DG. AM. DG. Provincial HDD. DG. 1644) 2 AO. y 2 RS. Dep gral. Provincial SH. 2 RR. AM. 1523-1807 Municipality Status Ciudad Founded Composition in 1646 (known additions/changes) GUATEMALA (depends directly on the audiencia) 1524 2 AO. 6 RR. Tes Gral Papel sellado (fm 1643). Esno pub y cabildo Alcaldia Mayor SAN SALVADOR 2 AO. y Alcabalas (RR Varied: stabilized at 20. AM. AM. 1 S (RC)*** (reestablish) 2 AO. AP. AR. AM. 6 RR. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. esno pub y del cabildo (1536/S Pedro Pto Caballos) 2 AO. AM. AM. 6 RS. 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 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 3 RR. 2 RR. AR. 2 RR. (1776) Esno Publico y del cabildo. Diptn. Provincial y Ales SH. also AR. AM. 4 RD’s. AR.

Corredor. pp 232-236. DG. minas y registros y abaluaciones 2 AO. an official of the Council of the Indies. Esno pub y del cabildo 2 AO. AR. 6 RR. ** S Vicente created at request RIVAS: Simancas *** Trujillo reestablished. Esno Pub y Cabildo 2 AO. Middle American Governors (Metuchen. regidor y alcalde provincial. 31 July 1811.All regimientos (RS& RD).Alcalde Ordinario. who died in 1531. Taplin. Alguacil y guarda mayor del puerto. AM. AR . RR . Mojonero.” Titulo de Jose Mariano Castro. Alf Mzy. AM Regidor/Alguacil Mayor. AR. AM. Therefore. Esno pu y del cabildo 2 AO. Porteros. AP Alcalde Provincial de la Sta. . Tegucigalpa cedula de ereccion in AGI Guatemala 623. 434 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Esno cab y Registros KEY: AO .Regidor/Alferez Real. 1976). RD . DG. Ales SH. Esno-Escribano All ayuntamientos name: Procurador Sindico. * Nueva Segovia was founded by Pedrarias Davila. RC Nov 18.Regimiento Sencillo. Ales de Hdd. AR. AM. Juarros’ 1646 information came from a 1646 report of Juan Diez de la Calle.Regidor/Depositario General (after 1799. esp. 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. AGI Guatemala 446. it dates to pre 1531. DG. Titles for 3 RD and 1 RS were issued for Quesaltenango. RS . SOURCES: Principal information compiled from Domingo Juarros Compendio de la Historia del Reino de Guatemala. 11 July 1815. Fiel Executor. 6 RR. DG . a RS). Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Regimiento Doble. E 21225 **** Santa Ana’s first sale of regimientos authorizes the sale of 6 “regimientos dobles y sencillos. 1807. 6 RR. Pregonero.2 L 2194.Alcalde de la Santa Hermandad. DG. See Juarros. Hdd. Esno pub de gbno del juzgo mayor y visitas de la rl caja. AM. 3 RR. ASH . Mayordomo.APPENDIX B (continued) Table of Ayuntamientos of Colonial Central America (Kingdom of Guatemala). AR. AGCA A1. NJ.

1660. S = Suppressed.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. 435 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. AM = Alcaldia Mayor. . 1660. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 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. CR = Absorbed into Costa Rica. N = Absorbed into Nicaragua. C = Corregimiento.APPENDIX C: Table of Political Divisions of the Reyno de Guatemala. (P) (AM) Soloia o Tecpanatitlan (C) Atitdn o Soloia (P) (AM) Totonicapan (C) Totonicapan (P) (AM) Nicaragua (G) Leon (P) (G y Cmd. 1660. and Com = Absorbed into Comayagua. P = Provincia.

N = Absorbed into Nicaragua. and Com = Absorbed into Comayagua. 1660. . 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. 1660. 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. I-CR = partido o f Intendancy o f Ciudad Real (Chiapas). AM = Alcaldia Mayor.APPENDIX C (continued): Table of Political Divisions of the Reyno de Guatemala. 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. I-C = intendancy o f Comayagua 436 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. S = Suppressed. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. P = Provincia. 1660. C = Corregimiento. CR = Absorbed into Costa Rica. I-N = partido of intendancy o f Nicaragua.

incorporating the former alcaldia mayor o f San Salvador. Noticias del Reyno de Guatemala. 437 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. the alcaldia mayor o f Nicoya. the AM o f Amatique and S Andres de Sarragosa were suppressed (S). NJ: 1972). Middle American Governors (Metuchen. the Valle o f Guatemala was divided into two alcaldias mayores. 1778. Per Taplin.25 Legajo 2603. Taplin considers Totonicapan a corregimiento. 713 pp 2rr. In 1753. Guazacapan and Escuintla joined to form an AM. and the corregimiento o f Realejo and Matagalpa. 75-6. Cuadro 2. Titulos de Juan Vacaro (1764) and Pedro Antonio Maceyra (1802). AGCA A3. Column 1796: AGCA A1. This is a list o f provinces o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala when Juan Hurtado and Ignacio Guerra were both escribanos. Glen W. Honduras. 177532 pses 5 1/2 rr o f which the crown gets 164. Mails o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala. the Intendancy of Nicaragua included the former government o f Nicaragua. Column: 1788: AGCA A3. 8 corregimientos were incorporated into larger gobiemos: 4 into Costa Rica (CR). had 9 subdelegados. Notes that there are 655 pueblos in 23 partidos. Chiapas included the government o f Soconusco and alcaldias mayores o f Ciudad Real and Tuxtia. Local military defense gets 9751 pp 3 Vi rr. Atitan and Tecpanatitan/Solola joined to form the AM o f Solola. Expediente 22716. with 11 subdelegados. 99. . 1 into Com ayagua (Com) and 3 into Nicaragua (N). and had 6 subdelegados.Sources: Column: 1654. No date. Cargos politicos superiores y sueldos anuales. San Salvador had no territorial changes. Chimaltenango and Sacatepequez. See for example AGI Guatemala 446. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Middle American Governors. Published in the Academia de Geografia e Historia de Guatemala. In 1660. the church gets 3067 pp 7 1/2 rr as its diezmo (tithe). pp.156 tributarios p a y . as well as the principal branches (ramos) o f the Real Hacienda. 1778. In these.2 Legajo 1355. Partidos que Tributan.Taplin. LXTV (1990): 252. Column 1778: Anonimo. formed from the government o f Comayagua and alcaldia mayor o f Tegucigalpa. Column ~1790. f 34. The original document also includes a list o f the religious orders present in the province at the time. Around 1703. Expediente 4389.16 246-4912. and had 14 subdelegaciones. but primary sources determine that the joint district o f Totonicapan and Gueguetenango (Huehuetenango) is an alcaldia mayor.

APPENDIX D Distances between different Cities of Central America. 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. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. SIC 438 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Anto Retaluleu Source: AGCA A1. Expediente 21389 * all unusual spellings.25 Legajo 2603. 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. .

1 6.5 2. which it joined in 1824.6 1.1 Guatemala S.8 2.0 6.8 1.7 2. 1775-1800 El: Distribution of Population.APPENDIX E: Population of the Kingdom of Guatemala.2 8.7 6.1 3.1 3.5 3.0 1.723 45743 25699 28757 78321 28765 16780 57045 45945 31020 145906 83627 44016 102.2 3.1 1.3 . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.9 8.2 15.2 3.000 22000 8000 15. El Reino de Guatemala durante el Gobiemo de Antonio Gonzalez Sardvia.6 8.7 14.8 3.0 4. 69.5 5.409 % 7.082 52586 24978 28563 66095 27953 17535 51272 52138 29248 117. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.9 2. by Districts.4 .6 3.5 6.436 56677 31455 69399 19955 2983 6209 8850 24536 797.3 . p.3 3. .8 7.2 4.8 1.6 10.1 3. 1993). ca.000 12000 30313 920.7 4.7 3. Military district populations have been added into the provinces (principally Comayagua).5 .1 1800 70. not El Salvador. Totals are mine). 203 % 5. and el Peten added to Verapaz. (Note: Sonsonate has been included under Guatemala.7 2. Salvador Honduras Nicaragua Costa Rica Total Bemabe Fernandez Hernandez. 1801-1811 (Guatemala.039 8901 20494 37. 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 40.0 8.0 4.1 2.

1989). p 193. 440 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.837 3596 4328 4646 3004 *Jesus Maria Garcia Afloveros. . Sebastian* S Juan del Obispo* 1603 2515 3004 Indios 1993 1831 Total 10. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.APPENDIX E (continued) E2: Population of Guatemala City (Asuncion de Guatemala) Ladinos Asuncion: Asuncion: Asuncion: Asuncion: Asuncion: Catedral* Remedios* Candelaria* S. Poblacion y Estado Socioreligioso de la Diocesis de Guatemala en el ultimo tercio del siglo XVIII (Guatemala.

4765 Mu) 1695 604 Nueva Segovia 453 (Mu) 151 Cartago 8337 632 7705 (6026 Me.Miil.059 5539 4888 4087 6000 18 441 164 614 239 209 218 338 (los demas) Ciudad Real** 3583 500 76 fam. Pa-Pardo.APPENDIX E (continued) E3: Population & Racial Composition of Select Cities & Towns. Vlu-Mulatto. Comayagua*** 498 families & 218 solt.Ladino. 86 507 families & 233 solt.Some.041 (los demas) (Mu) 336 589 (M) 826 1108 (algunos) 464 5536 (Mu) 454 (L) 500 a ) 400 (L & some Esp.Negro (Black) Algunos . Central America.Families — 441 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Me-Mestizo. 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. 5740 Mu) Granada 8233 863 5675 (910 Me. 1407 — Tegucigalpa*** families (S Miguel. L . 872 Pa) Villa Hermosa (CR) 610 3890 3280 (2396 Me. . 144 aim.. si . 1679 Mu) San Jose 6350 8326 1976 Villa Vieja (CR) 1848 6655 4807 (3935 Me. 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. Par) 25.) 346 2795 (L) 1383 (M) 10. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fam. Alm-Almas (Souls).the rest. los demas.000 6849 1300 680 2084 3421 4047 12. 884 Mu) :sp-Spanish. ca. 330 single 300 (N) 380 Truxillo** 80-100 Leon 144 7571 1061 6366 (626 Me.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. ComayW Rio Abajo & Hondo: aguela Suyapa) 543 fam.

Sta Cruz Chiquimullila. Estimated Population o f Santiago de Guatemala. His categories are Spanish & clergies = my Spanish.. p. p. 442 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Sta Ana Grande. p 17. Chimaltenango. Solola. p. p 29 (and 200 o f destacamento). Truxillo. **Juarros: Ciudad Real: vecindario mas q 333 habitantes y como 50 indios de los Barrios. and Indian o f 1 inner barrio (1300) and 4 outer settlements (5400). 45.APPENDIX E (continued) Sources: ^Santiago. Huehuetenango. fin C.p. Table 9. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47. Lutz. p. 21. 19. and Antigua. 110. p. “gente Ordinaria” = my Mixed. . 43. p. *** Honduras information.. AGI Guatemala 501. 1801 Matricula. Santiago de Guatemala 1541-1773. 40. S Antonio Retahuleu w/ Sta Catarina Sacat. p 15.

Sonsonate 443 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 9 Julio 1791. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.APPENDIX F: Jurisdictions of the Villas of Santisima Trinidad de Sonsonate & Tegucigalpa F-S 1: Population By Parishes. 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. 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. . Alcaldia Mayor. 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.

68 Total 35. 1821 Parishes Population Towns & Pueblos No. 82 San Pedro 2289San Pedro. Guaymango. Mexicanos. San Antonio 536. By Villages. 686 Naguisalco 3629 Naguisalco 617 Apaneca 3188 Apaneca. of Houses Sonsonate 4112Sonsonate. Tujuta 55. Juayua 202. 168. Masagua. 2666Asuncion Ysalco 304 4179Dolores Ysalco Dolores Y. 684 F-S6: Population. Salquatitan. 1796 Indians: Spaniards & Ladinos 4698 Tributaries. Caluco 238. 187. . 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. 111. 604 21 pueblos. 34.561 22 Pueblos 6787 444 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.523 Guaymoco 1115 Guaymoco. Tacuba 278. 2 bos. 12 Caluco 2016Naulingo. 2 naborios. 236 Aguachapan 6444 Aguachapan 1251 Atiquisaya 2415 Atiquisaya 453 Ataco 3508 Ataco. 66 Asuncion Y. 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. 21 pueblos Married: 7893 Married: 3236 1415 Widowed: Widowed: 649 2637 Single Single: 2052 Children: 4550 Children: 2252 Total: 16495 Total: 8189 TOTAL: 24. Sonsacate. 265. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Santo Domingo 285.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.

Aguanqueterique in 1801 was an Indian village in Goascoran. 1801 Pueblos Valles Indios Espaiioles & Ladinos 5 10 1412 14.268 ♦In 1791.975 5600 3254 7152 713 1984 54 8172 282 45. 7-20. and Aguanqueterique was a separate parish with 2082 residents. W (years) M Villa y sus arrabales en circuito. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 leguas Mulatos 213 186 Pueblo de Tamara y valle. W-Women 1783 >20. Parish o f Tegucigalpa. Population. AGE 0-20. Tatumbla was a parish in the district o f Comayagua.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.Men. contiguo Indios 358 Valle de Rio Hondo y rio Abajo. Espaiioles 104 88 max. Y V 150 1178 37 407 215 0 93 2080 Total 446 3852 124 1530 805 6 385 7148 445 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. con aldeas 1 Indios 2 Mulatos 108 105 Total 1798 1707 M . M 104 796 32 358 191 3 79 1563 >20. F-T2. . Population By Parishes. 3 1/2 leguas Mulatos 937 941 Pblo San Miguel. not Tegucigalpa.140 231 Total 15. contiguo a la Villa Indios 27 28 407 Pueblo Comayaguela.APPENDIX F (continued): Jurisdiction of the Alcaldia Mayor of Tegucigalpa Parishes Tegucigalpa Cantarranas Danli Choluteca Ojojona Goascoran Orica Nacaome Texiguat ♦Tatumbla Total F-Tl.

mulatos 112 149 382 Ermita del Rio Hondo y su valle 114 143 353 Iglecia Tamara. Teupasenti Choluteca: Choluteca .APPENDIX F (continued): Jurisdiction of the Alcaldia Mayor of Tegucigalpa F-T3. 7. Potrerillos. Curaren. Reitoca Cantarranas: Cantarrana. San Francisco V.. . Parish Pueblos Tegucigalpa: Tegucigalpa. Pespire. Parish o f l 'egucigalpa. Danli: Danli. coa y sta cruz 80 124 266 Matheos a Upare 30 31 98 Potrero Ysaguire a Orcones 52 79 176 Sta Rosa Loarque. Nacaome: Nacaome. Morolica V. Amarateca. Pooulation. Yusgare Ojojona: Ojojona . Texiguat Texiguat 446 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Langue Orica: Orica. Indios 5 8 10 74 Tamara. y su valle. Alubaren. 6. 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. Tircagua. Agalteca. Lauterique. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Aramesina.. Resum en (Individuals) 2687 427 73 1499 531 496 18 314 390 129 255 231 470 287 264 8071 2. Orocuina. Lepaterique Goascoran: Goascoran. a tierras del Pe. 8. San Martin M. 1791 1. Tamara Aguanqueterique: Aguanqueterique. Guaimaca V. Comayaguela. 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. Santa Ana. mulatos 58 240 Soroguare.. 5. 9. 10. Linaca. 3. 4. Pueblo Abajo. Corpus Mineral. Jamastran Valle.

Alubaren R. Langue. Xaxetapa. Comayaguela Pueblos de Indios Parish: Oioiona Pueblos: Ojojona. Pueblos de Indios: San Miguel de Tegucigalpa. Mineral del Corpus. El Cimarron. Lauterique Subdelegacion de Choluteca Parish: Choluteca Pueblos: Villa de Choluteca. . Rio Abajo. Orocuina. Tiscagua 447 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. San Francisco. Suyapa R.APPENDIX F (continued): Jurisdiction of the Alcaldia Mayor of Tegucigalpa F-T5: Parishes of Tegucigalpa. Moroceli. Agalteca Subdelegacidn de Nacaome Parish: Nacaome Pueblos: Nacaome. Santa Gerturids. Pespire R. Yuscaran. Santa Ana Parish: Tatumbla Parish Texiguat Pueblos: Texiguat. Teupacenti. Yuculateca. Marale. Mineral de S Antonio. Aaramecina R. S Antonio Dulce Nombre Pueblos de Indios Parish: Goascaran R Pueblos: Goascaran R. Reduccion de Mateo. La Venta. Namasigua. Agalteca Pueblos de Indios: Parish: Orica Pueblos: Orica. Sabanagrande. La Caridad. Alauca. S Diego Buena Vista. Mineral de Potrerillos Subdelegacion de Cedros Parish: Cantarranas Pueblos: Cantarranas. Reytoca. 1801 Subdelegacion de Tegucigalpa Parish: Tegucigalpa Pueblos (de Espafioles/Ladinos): Villa de Tegucigalpa. Xacaliapa/Suyapa. Goascoran.. San Antonio de Xalaca. Xacaliapa (Jacaleapa). Mineral de Cedros. Lepaterique. Pespire.. La Estancia de Oropoli. Aguanqueterique. Reduccion de S MarcoSyPueblos de Indios: Ninaca. Rio Hondo. El Rancho. Curaren. Guaimaca. Mineral de Sta Lucia. San Juan. Caridad de Guinope. Orica. Alubaren. Yusguare. Tamara Subdelegacion de Danli Parish: Danli Pueblos: Danli. Aramecina. Pueblo Abajo.

and Corpus as Spanish and mulato.1743_________ Partido District Teguci­ galpa Cant­ arranas Espafiol Spanish RM* Poblados Communities Indio Mineral Indian Mine Tamara S. 874 4128 Co. Ind. Carlos None 2680 2421 393 2 50 2575 1592 2700 294 1 1 Aguanque -terique None None 2394 1071 0 1 Orica None Sta. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. = Militia Companies. Esp. Martin S. = Espafiol. MU Esp 420 3 P* 1344 210 1 Choluteca V* Nacaome Ojojona p* a None Texiguat Lineza Orocuina Yusguare Pespire Ojojona Sta Ana Ula Lepaterique Aguanque­ terique." ° By 1765. RM = Real Minas (Mine) 448 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. ** In the relacidn. Ines Venta. P = Pueblo (Village). . Salvador Tegucigalpa None Cedros Suyatal Pelanariz S. Jose El Coyolar Quibiriplanta Apacunca None Habitantes Inhabitants Ind. Juan** S. Tapale Yuculateca Guarabuqui Guaytnaca Moroceli Guayuaca** S.APPENDIX F (continued): Jurisdiction of the Alcaldia Mayor of Tegucigalpa ___________ F-T6:AlcaldiaMayorde Tegucigalpa. appear as “villas de negrosy mulatos. V =Villa (Town). Reytoca Alubaren Curaren Lacterique Orica Agalteca Tatumbla Goascoran Langue Arameci Teupasenti Corpus0 S. Jose Colon Guasaule Sta. Santa Lucia & Nacaome’s populations were classed as mulato. = Indian. S. Antonio Valle Valley Amarateca Rio Hondo Yeguare Talanga Xalaca Ciria. TERMS: Co. Lucia° None None 235 223 0 0 Goascoran None V* No cabildo None 643 1260 0 0 Danli Potrerillos0 Xamastlan Xacaleapa Cuscateca Vallecillo 294 5062 378 3 * Town has same name as partido. Potrerillos’ as pardo. Lad. Fco** Oropoli S. Lad. = Ladino. Mil. Antonio Comayaguela S.

1981). F-S6: Gazeta de Guatemala. F-T5: Matricula de Honduras. 32. Number 3716. Fondo Colonial. 1815. 28. 388. pp. pp. pp. Expediente 4727 F-S5: AGCA A1. ANH (Tegucigalpa). 1801. Boletin del Archivo General de Guatemala 2:3. p. 1981). NB: Sum o f Soroguare is o ffb y 100 in the original (490). reprinted: H. . 466. M. F-T6 : 1765.64-81 F-T2: Revista del Archixo y Biblioteca Nacionales (Honduras). T. Exp. Leyva. 194. 32. pp. 276-289. 588. F -T l: Domingo Juarros. Compendio de la Historia del Reino de Guatemala (Guatemala. 7 January 1799. p. Compendio de la Historia del Reino de Guatemala (Guatemala.44 Leg. S2: Jesus Maria Garcia Aiioveros. ed. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. AGI Guatemala 501.4 AGCA A3 Legajo 238. 1981). 1989). Ho. Poblacion y Estado Socioreligioso de la diocesis de Guatemala en el ultimo tercio del siglo XVIII (Guatemala. F-T4: Domingo Juarros. Report of Alcalde Mayor Jose de Najera. 5331. 449 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Informe de Joseph Valle. Documentos Coloniales de Honduras (Choluteca.Appendix F: Alcaldias Mayores de Sonsonate & Tegucigalpa Sources F-S l. Intendant. No 95. F-T3: Padron. Ramon de Anguiano. 205 F-S3. 64-81.: CEHDES. Box 105.

cacao e ylo morado. 450 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. ningunas en sustancia. Chimaltenango. Cacao y algodon en rama. Ylados de algodon y algunas minas de plata. proque las que da se consumen en sus despoblada provincia. azucar. azucar. Mucho anil y algun azucar. Costarrica. Obispado. breas. . Totonicapam. por cuya razon y sin que el puerto de San Juan se fomente. no se verifican hoy otras que las que del puerto de Realejo se Uevan al Peru. Nicaragua. alguno mular. In Carlos Melendez. Tabaco y muy poco anil. El corte de palos de tinte y de exquisitas maderas respectiva a dicha costa del Norte. Cacao. palos de tinte. Chiquimula. Gracias. tampoco nos rinde utilidad chica ni grande. sucediendo con esto lo mismo que con el carey y la tortuga.. 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. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Nicoya. Minas de plata. Soconusco. azucar. Segobia. con sus respectivas producciones. mucho maiz. Escuintla. pp. 66-67. Obispado. Trigo. Tegucigalpa. Ylados de algodon y zarzaparrilla. Ganado de dichas dos clases. Otra. maderas. Textos Fundamentales de la Independencia Centroamericana (Costa Rica: Editorial Universitaria. y muy poco afiil y zarzaparilla. y Enero 3 de 1800.: Granada. Matagalpa. y arzobispado. Ganado bacuno. capital. Muy pocos ylados de idem. Comaagua. afiil. alquitranes. San Salbador. Da texidos de lana. Sus producciones. y ganado de las propias dos clases. petates y sombreros. Obispado de Ciudad Real de Chiapas. quesos. afiil. 1971). Sal y pescado. Tirgo y grabanzos. San Antonio. y aun mas trigo. perlas.Appendix G: Commerce o f the Kingdom o f Guatemala. azucar. jamas podra el reyno gozar lo que su mismo terreno le brinda por aquella prte en tantisima abundancia. sin que a nosotros nos resulte ventaja alguna. Muchos texidos de algodon. Tabaco. Nota: Q en quant a extraccion de maderas y palos de titne. Otra. Verpaz. e ylo morado. Source: Attributed to Spanish merchant Juan de Zavala (1753-1800). Sonsonate. ganado bacuno y mular. Trigo y minestras. excepto el poco tabaco que coge. Guatemala. Nada en sustancia. Azucar y ganado. Solola. ed. tortugas y carey. Zacatepeques. algun balsamo. Produce cacao y algun afiil. 1800 G 1: Noticia de las Provincias v partidos que tienen el Revno de Guatemala.

33. Boletin del Archivo General del Gobiemo. p. Produce. 1765 Fruits arras indigo (anil) sugar petates de tul cotton thread cadao tobacco (little) ajonjoli (\iXX\e)chian (little) G3: Tegucigalpa. San Jose. July 1996. 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. No 2. 2. Don Joseph Melchor de Ugalde (Treasurer). Costa Rica. “La Alcaldia Mayor de Tegucigalpa en la Relacion Geografica de Don Baltasar Ortiz de Letona. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 451 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1. Produce. No 1. Vol. Paper presented at the Tecer Congreso Centroamericano de Historia.” p.Appendix G: Commerce of the Kingdom o f Guatemala. October 1935. 1800 (continued) G2: Sonsonate. 1765. Boletin del Archivio General de Guatemala 2:3. 466. 288 Tegucigalpa: Maria de los Angeles Chaverri Mora. Joseph Valle. 1765: Informe. p. Vol. The relacion geografica was reprinted in BAGG. 1743. .

.APPENDIX H: Comparison of Prices Paid for Regimientos Sencillos. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. for some o f the 17lh c values. Kingdom of Guatemala. Regidor Sencillo 452 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 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).

453 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.: Juarros. Compendio Historico.. pp 234-5. 1781-1807 and the 1600s SOURCES: 18th c. Cartago & Chiapas values for 1781-5 and late 19th c respectively are from the Memorial that went w/ Listado de Valores.APPENDIX H: Comparison of Prices Paid for Reeimientos Sencillos. March 17 1807. . * Ciudad Real.. 1804: # 37. Kingdom of Guatemala. Captain General A.a los oficios de Regidores. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1807.: AGI Guatemala 629. Testimonio: cumpto RC 1797 re legitimo valor . Gonzalez. Listado de Valores de Regimientos. 3 April 17th c.

Papel Sellado AJguacil Mayor 1637 1643 1613 1639 1627 1644 1634 1645 1643 2000 2000 3000 3000 4687 14.APPENDIX I: Comparison.000 Price 2400(4) Tes. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sources: See Appendix H.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. est. 1275 1000T 1700T 2000 T 2000 T 300 Prices are in pesos unless there is a T (tostones) or Due (ducados). .000 1600 14. Prices of Regimientos Dobles.4 RD Cartago . 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 10.3 RD * Ciudad Real . Kingdom of Guatemala Regimientos Dobles San Vicente . 454 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.4 RD* Guatemala.

1643 1750 T 28. Kingdom of Guatemala (cont. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.) 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. . Sources: See Appendix H. 455 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.) 1806 1803 1799 1796 1794 Price 2000 600 600 300 150 1105 500 Year 1645 1645 Price 4000 5000 T (Prov’cl) 1644 1643 16643 8000 (Prov’l) 2500 T (Prov’cl) 1600 T (Prov’cl) 1781-5* 350 Prices are in pesos unless there is a T (tostones) or Due (ducados). Prices of Regimientos Dobles.APPENDIX I: Comparison.500 T 6000 1550 750 2600T 4200 T 320 1799 (ren.

. 279. Christobal Mendez. 21 Op 1807 RD Francisco S Martin.Appendix J: Sale of Regimientos Kingdom o f Guatemala. Casimiro Jose Cuellar. Alg May.l Sta Hdd RD RC: 9 Jun Manuel Carrera: regidor y depositario general. Tegucigalpa Conf. alcalde provincial. 200 p. AP de Sta Hdd 1774 RS RC 19 Sep: Luis Rivera. 200 p 1806 RS Miguel Bustamante (not accepted) 1807 RS Joaquin Espinoza. 100 p 1775 RS 1777 RS Don Juan Igno Garzon (Oyuela. 200 p RC 15 Mar: Francisco Boijas. 205 pp 1802 RS Miguel Maria Guerrero. 1780: 1775 RD 1780: 1775 RS RC: 9 Jun Jose Antonio Cicilia y Montoya: Regidor sencillo AGCA: Leg 4632. Alguacil Mayor. 250 p 1780: 1775 RC: 9 Jun Francisco Guevara y Dongo: regidor y Alferez Real. 1750-1810 Sonsonate Compras de Regimientos Conf. ff287. 21 Op 1810 1806 RD RC 27 Oct: Alferez Real Jose Vigil 456 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1797 1795 RD RC: 28 Mar. guarda mayor 1780: 1775 RD RC: 9 Jun: Manuel Diez Clemente: R/Alcalde Prov. 1808 1807 RS RC 14 Feb: Benito Lorenzo LAVAQUI. (AGI 1806: 1796 RD 622) Remates de Oficios. 210 p. 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. Cristoval Saavedra. 1807 RS Jose Manuel Marquez. 200 p 1774 1772 RD RC 16 Nov: Jose de Zelaya y Midense. Leg 2177 Exp 15713. 1805 1802 RS Juan Miguel Midense. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Buy Type Date Name 1750: 1749 RD RC: 27 Nov. R/AM. R/Alf real RC: 9 Aug:Ramon de Borica. 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. 281 v. Juan Jacinto de Herrera. guarda mayor 1767 RD Nicolas de Ancheita y Castillo. 1803 1802 RS RC 20 May: Jose Vigil. f 67. Buy Type Date Name MIA RS RC 16 Sep: Guillermo Rivera. 300 p. vac. 300 p RD 1791 RC 23 May: Francisco Gonzalez Travieso. Regidor sencillo 1800 1795 RS RC: 9 Aug.

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. 300 p plus 25 pp donation 1806 resigns 1794 1793 RS Miguel Ignacio Alvarez de Asturias y Naba. Manuel de Barroeta. 300 p & 25 p donation 1794 1793. 500 p and donation 1794 1793. Depo. Depositario General. replaces BasilioV. 500 p & donat.RD Pedro Aycinena y Larayn. AGCA A.000 p RC 16 Sep: Simon Larrazabal. Gral/Receptor de Penas. 500 p & donation 1806 (1800: Becomes RS. DG Retires: 1780: RC 29 May AGCA. 4600 pp 1739 RD RC 28 Jul: Alg Mayor de Aud. Alguacil Mayor.l 1807 44-1118). 300 p & 25 p donation 1794 1793 RS Jose Antonio Batres y Mufioz. Depositario General. Alferez Real 1764 1761 RD RC 8 Jul: Basilio Vicente Roma. b/c abolish all DG’s) 1794 1793. AM 1764 1761 RD RC 8 Jul: Juan Fermin de Aycinena.RD Luis Francisco Barrutia y Roma. 300 p & 25 p donation 1803 1794 1793. AP (1807: gives to son. 1707 RD RC 6 Dec: Jose de Cabrera. AO/Ayunt RS Guatemala de la Asunci6n fTVueva Guatemala) 1794 1793 RD Vicente Aycinena y Crarillo.RD Jose Maria Peynado y Pezonarte. M anuel. for self & 1 son. Roma 1753 RS 1764 1761 RD RC 8 Jul: Manuel Gonzalez Batres.1793 RS Manuel Jose Pavon y Mufloz. 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. 4632.RD Pedro Juan de Lara.RS Rafael Jose Ferrer. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1794 1793. . 283v. 16. 300 p & 25 p donation 1794 1793 RS Martin (Antonio) Barrundia Segura. 500 p 1794. 1819 500 p and donation 1794 1793. R/AM. 300 p & 25 p donation 1805 457 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1764 1761 RD RC 8 Jul: Francisco Ignacio Barrutia.RS Jose Antonio Castafiedo.

RS. Pedro Juan). R/AP.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. R/AR. R/Alg Mayor. 200 pp (between original purchase & interim title (1810). 150 pp 1815 1810 RD RC: 11 Jul Calixto Aguilar. E 1129) Francisco (Antonio) Batres y (Najera) (AGCA 2188-15735. sell all 6 regimientos in 1806. 300 P Fernando Mendez.2 L 44. RS. R/AR. 300 pesos 1811 1807 RD RC: 31 Jul 1811 1807 RD RC: 31 Jul Stiago Garcia. Letter. as procurador o f the town. R/AM. 300 pp/5 years 1807 RS Domingo Figueroa. R/alf Real. AP Antonio Isidro Palomo Manrrique Miguel Jacinto Marticorena (AGCA A1. R/Alg mayor. 100 p RS 1815 1810 RS RC: 11 Jul Santa Ana 1806: Establish ayuntamiento de Espanoles for this pueblo . Corregidor y Intendente de la Ciudad y Provincia de San Salvador 1811 1807 RD RC: 31 Jul Josef Mariano castro.45v) 1806: establish ayuntamiento de Espanoles for this villa. R/AP. Pblo de Sta Ana. He resells 5 to: 1807 RD Jose Mariano Castro. RS. 27 September 1809.Appendix J: Sale of Regimientos (continued) Guatemala de la Asuncion fNueva Guatemala) Conf. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 300 pesos 1811 1807 RS RC: 31 Jul Domingo Figueroa. Bartolome Jose Tellez purchased them all and resold them to other vecinos. 200 pesos 1811 1807 RS RC: 31 Jul Mariano Menendez. Buy 1799?. R/AP: val 150 p. RS. (left by father. sale 1815 1810 RD RC: 11 Jul 1815 1810 RD RC: 11 Jul Miguel Molina. . 300 pp/5 yrs 1807 RD Fernando Mendez. sell all 6 regimientos to Bartolome Josef Tellez to resell. 300 pp/5 years 1807 RD Santiago Garcia. 200 pesos 458 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. some changed: vis) Mariano Galvez. 200 pp 1807 RS Mariano Menendez. 150 pp Juan Antonio Lopez.

A lf May. RS RC: 19dec: Jose Anto Rodeiguez del Camino. 900 p. 380 pesos RC: 22 Dec Antonio de Amaya. 400 pesos RC 21 Apr Josef Rafael de M olina. Luis Fernandez: Ale Prov. R/Alc Prv. R Alg May. 1000 pesos Benito Gonzalez Patifio. A lf Rl. 300 p. R/DG. RS. AP. RC: 19 Feb Jose Antonio Vasconcelos. 200 pp SAN SALVADOR Conf. R/Alg Mayor. R/Alg May (AGI 629) Name Antonio Fernandez. Alferez Real RC: 28 Dec Juan Francisco Quintanilla. R/AP. 400 pesos Alexandra Saenz de Ungo. RS. Bartolome Alvarez y Soto. 225 pesos Domingo Luciano Duran. 500 pesos Antonio de Arriaga.. R/Alf Rl RC:? Mariano Prado. 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 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 300p. . RC: 12 Oct Antonio Merino. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. RS. AP. 128 p RC: 15 Nov Fco Comejo. R/AM. 128 pp RC 21 Nov Phelipe de Pereira. 380 pp. R/DG. RC: 15 Mar Jose Rodriguez. 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. 200 pesos RC: 2 Feb Jose Antonio Rodriguez del Camino. 250 pp RC: 5 Mar Nicolas de Cafias. 535 pesos Alexandra Ungo. RS.Appendix J: Sale of Regimientos (continued) San Vicente de Austria Conf. 420 p Juan Antonio Rosales. Alg Mayor. de la Sta Hermandad. 300 peoss. RS. 300 pesos Venetura de la Calera. Alguacil Mayor. RS. 300 p Pedro Gonzalez del Castillo. 2000 pesos RC: 9 Jun Francisco Molina. 1105 p 1/2 r Pablo Gonzales. RS RC: 19 Feb Mnl Anto Yraeta. RS. RS RC 28 Dec Felipe Mariano Vidaurre. 3125 pesos RC: 9 Aug Manuel Ximenez Basurto. Juan de Aranzamendi.

650 p 1788 RS RC: 14apr Martin Josef Escolan. 300 p 1797 RS RC: 24 Dec Victor Santiago Rodriguez. Captain Geenral’s temporary title. R/Alg Mayor: 800 pp (purchase in 1792) X EREZ DE CHOLUTECA 1761 RD Juan Feliz Bricefio. R/ALg May. 2000 pesos. 300 p (purchase in 1794) 1802 RD Josef George Louzel. 460 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. R/AP. R/DG. vo Granada.Appendix J. 400 p 1785 RD RC: 13 Apr Josef de la Luz Escolan. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1769 RD RC: 5May Refers to RC o f 1761. I670pp. Type Date Name 1756 RS RC: 23 Mar Juan Joseph Escolan. AP/R (new title in 1763) Pablo Nieto. AP/R. Granada. 600 p RC 13 Feb 1770 RD RC: 16 Dec Phelipe Cisneros Torquemada. RS. Ale Prov. 300 p (purchase in 1794) 1797 RS RC: 21 Dec Josef Rumualdo Becerril. 2000 p. RS. 300 p RC: 29 Sep 1782 RD RC: 22 Dec Josef Antonio de Andrade. 100 p Gabriel de Saavedra. R/AP. RS. 300 p 1756 RS RC: 23 Mar Juan Gonzalez de Castillo. in which Armendi is Alcalde Provincial de la Santa Hermandad for 4 “cabildos y ciudades” : Leon. 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. unico postor 1798 1796 RS R C :30Jul Bias Joaquin de Sarria. 300 pp. 4 cavildos q comprende la Provincia de Nicaragua. R/DG. 300 p (purchase in 1794) RC: 2 Feb COMAYAGUA 1759 RD RC: 26 Jun 1797 RD RC: 30 May Antonio Balibrera. Segovia y Villa de Nicaragua 1670 pp. 400 pesos 1766 RD Jose Antonio Martinez Molina. 100 p PROVINCIA DE NICARAGUA Alcaldes de la Santa Hermandad 1761 RD RC: 2 Dec Juan Baptista de Armendiz. R/Alf Rl: 300 p RC: 13 Sep 1775 RS Benito Dominguez de Castilla. . 26 May 1758 1782 RD RC: 23 Feb Josef Antonio Arauz y Altamirano. 1757 RS RC: 12 Nov Manuel de Molina RS. 3350pp 1789 RD RC: 10 Mar Manuel de Taboada. 400 p 1771 RS Joseph Sebastiann Zelayandia. 300 p RC: 27 Feb 1773 RD Josef de Salazar. RS. 100 p Joseph Rivera. 100 p RC: 7 Aug 1762 RD Joseph Martin de Zelaya. Alg Mayor. Sale of Reeimentos (continued) SAN MIGUEL Conf.

R. Fiel Ejec. 300 p Santiago Vilches y Andravide. 210 p Diego de Carranza. R/DG. 150 p Francisco Estevan Sanchez de Herrera. 325 p Manuel de la Cerda. Regidor. A lf Mayor 1205p Manuel Antonio de Telleria. 325 p Anto Bruno Fernandez de Bobadilla. 75 p Andres de Villar. 210 p Nicolas Bricefio de Coca. 620 p Francisco Antonio Orozco. 166 p ? Miguel de Vilches y Cabrera. Alg May. vacante Jose Jacobo Cordoba. 235 p Ylario Parodi Jose Antonio de Bustos y Santiago. DG/R. 125 p Miguel de Armas. 225 p Jose Manl Bonilla. 260 p Francisco de Altamirano y Velasco. A lf May/Reg. 300 p Juan Santos de San Pedro. R/DG Manuel Antonio de Bustos. R /A lf Rl.Appendix J: Sale of Regimientos (continued) NUEVA SEGOVIA Conf. 125 p Juan Philiberto Grozo. 200 p 461 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 125 p Francisco Joseph Casco y Aviles. R/Fiel executor. A lf Mayor. 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. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 260p Estevan Jose Bricefio Coco. 300 p Joseph de Villar. R /A lf Rl. 210 p Francisco Antonio de Somarriba. 2225 p Jose Antonio Bonilla. . Alg Mayor. 300 p Fco Mauricio de Orozco. 200 pp . 915 p Juan Phelipe de Oconor. 305 p Luis de Bargas Bonilla. R /A lf mayor. 300 p Silbestre Villalta y Guzman. repeat earlier Joseph Diaz de la Paz. 75 p Nicolas Velazquez y Baras. R/Alg Mayor: 305 p Joseph Antonio de Arechavala. R/DG. 300 p Andres Gonzalez Araujo. 210 p Phelipe Constantino Oconor.

R/Fiel Exec. R/Alf Rl 1802 1799 RS RC: 7 Dec Benito Lardizaba. 320 p 1797 RD Juan Sanches. 1000 p 1799 RS RC: 22 Feb Juan Lorenzo Cardenal. 250 p 1783 RD RC: 13 Sep Pedro Ygn. 300 p RS RC: 28 Jan 1778 RS RC: 23 Mar Thomas Fernandez Moure de Silva. R/AP: 150 p (Granada?) 1800 RS D Jose Parajon. toAlg M ayor. 3200 p. 305 p 1796 RS Lorenzo Cardenas.Appendix J: Sale of Regimientos (continued) LEON PE NICARAGUA (continued) Conf. Buy Type Date Name 1769 RD D Pedro Baca ( Cabeza de Vaca). 285p RS RC: 26 Nov 1786 RS RC: 26 Nov Francisco Josef de Castellon. 300 p 1801 RS Jose Francisco Marino?. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1800 p. R/AR 1775 RD RC: 8 Feb Pedro Manuel de Ayerdi. 300 p 1801 RD Joaquin Solorzano. 325p RS RC: 4 Oct 1791 RS RC: 23 May Bias Joaquin Sarria. 550 p 1785 RD RC: 14 Jun RS Luis Coeto de Landa. 1800 p 1783 RS RC: 26 Dec Jose Antonio de los Reyes. 300 p 1796 RS Jose Guerrero. 150 pesos (AGI 624) 1818 RD RC: 6 Apr Leopoldo Aviles. R/Alg May. 320 p 1783 RS RC: 26 Dec Francisco Diaz de Mayorga 1784 RS RC: 16 Nov Domingo Nicolas Galarza. Ale Prov. 320 pp 1791 RS Joaquin de Arechavala bought and then ceded to D Jose Antonio Diaz. 1300 p 1786 Juan Guidin. Diaz Caveza de Vaca. 325 p 1801 RS Rumallo Guerrero. A lf Rl. 2000 p 462 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 3555 p 1776 Bernardo Jose Mendez de Figueroa. 330 p (Granada?) 1793 RS Chaverria. 300 p 1798 RD D Manuel Marchena. 760 p 1794 RD Jose Antonio Bustos. 325 pp 1790 Joseph Manuel Diaz Caveza de Vaca. . (?Granada) 1795 RS Melchor dela Zerda. R/A lf Rl. 300 p 1801 RS Eduardo Arana. 300 p 1801 RS Agustin Anzoategui. remate. 360 p 1810 1811 RD Reg: 4 Jul Josef Parajon.

150 p Manuel Antonio Arana. Ale Prov. 150p 1795 1791 RD RC: 18 May 1792 RD RC: 27 Apr Juan Francisco Bonilla. vacant since 1744. 800 pp Ubaldo Antonio de Pasos. 25C Josef Maria Robles. A lf Real 1782 1778 RD RC: 16 Dec (group request. . 175 p Josef Antonio Oreamuno. 1750pp M Diego Vazquez de Montiel. Alg May. A lf Rl. 500 p Nicolas Coello. 250 pp Joaquin Vigil.300 pp Juan de Oliver. Alf Real. same arg. 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. A Provl Hdd. 500 p 1787 1786 RD RC: 23 Jun Francisco Carazo. 300 p Bartolome Gutierrez. Ale Provl. to resestablish an extinct ayuntamiento'.Appendix J: Sale of Regimientos (continued) GRANADA Conf. 500p RD: RC: 9 Jun CHIAPA (AGI 446) Conf. 550 p Santiago Gonzalez. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.Alg May. 500 p Jose Manuel de Velasco y Campo. DG. A lf Mayor: 800 p Joseph Antonio de Arguelles. A lf Rl. offers to pay in cacao) 1754 Juan Manuel de Soborio. 300 p Antonio Gutierrez de Arce. 1050 p Josef Antonio de Echavarria. 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. 300 p 463 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Alg May. 300 p Bias Gorris. 300p Alonso Cavezas de Urizar. 300 pp (1793 sale: AGI 629) D Anto Perez Mena. Alg Mayor Jose Antonio Dominguez. 700p Jose Joaquin Solorzano. R/Alf Rl. 150 p Antonio de la Fuente. Alg May. 305 p CARTAGO 1656*sic RD RC: 10 Feb Julio de Chavarria Nabarro. A lf Mayor 333 pp Alonso Cabezas y Urizar.

A lf May—Alferez Mayor (Standard Bearer). Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DG-Depositario General p . Ale Hdd/Ale Prov—Alcalde de la Hermandad/Provincial de la Hermandad (Rural Constable). unless otherwise specified.pesos SOURCES Principal Sources AGI Guatemala 629. splits with brother Hipolito 21 Aug 1799: Antonio Batres. . Alg Mayor de corte. .seen above 13 Nov 1795: Juan Mariano Barroeta: since 1787 (son o f Jose Manuel). Alg Mayor: TERMS: A lf Rl -Alferez Real (Standard Bearer). 464 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner..Appendix J: Sale of Regimientos (continued) ALGUACIL MAYOR DE AUDIENC1A 28 Jul 1739: Manuel de Barroeta. Alg May—Alguacil Mayor. AGI Guatemala 446.

1847: R. Francisco Aqueche. Juan Bautista. Desiderio Andreu. 1823: A1. (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. Juan Francisco Ajuria. Guatemala. Andres.1829a:R. Francisco Xavier de Aguirre. Antonio Anguiano. Andres. Juan Antonio Aragon. Jose Antonio Arana. 1850: R. Leocadio Alvarez de Asturias. Damaso Angulo. 1851:R 1795: A2 1845: R. 1832: R. Lie. Juan Antonio Araus. Salvador Albert. Alvarez Asturias. 1838: A2 1842. Manuel Acuna. 1834: A3. 1799: A2 1819-1820a:R. Mmo Alvarez. 1784-1850 NAME Abarca. Cesario. 1824. 1829. 1835:A2. A2 1813. Andreu. 1814a:Al. 1844: A2 1842. Lie. 1794-1812. Pablo Alvarez de Asturias y Beteta. Juaquin Angulo. 1848: A3. Manuel Jose Agreda. 1830-1: A2 A2 1817-8: R 1838b-1839b: R 1839a: R. Felipe Araujo. 1792-3. Juan Antonio Alvarado. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tohmas Almorza. Maestro Aguilar. Antonio Alvarez Asturias. 1815-20: R. Jose Antonio) S2 1788-9. 1820a:A2 1832. Miguel Ignacio Alvarez de Asturias. Ricardo Aguirre y Larios. Jose Alvarado. 1830: A2 A1 1818: A 2(l) 1824-5: S2 1826-8: SEC 465 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Lie. 1835: A2 1814a: R 1829b:R 1815: R. 1831: A2 1826. 1846-7: R S2 R R 1823b: R (Sig. Juan Alfaro. Fco Xavier Aguirre. 1831.Appendix K: Town Councilors. 1811 :S. Jose Maria Alvarado. Antonio Aguirre. 1833. 1838b: A3 1826-7. 1850: A3 1834. 1849-50: R R 1843.18378b:R. .1839b:Al R 1809b-10:R.

Lie. Arzu. 1818:A1 1849 R 1832 1821-2. 1834:S2 1802 1790-1: R. 1841: A1 1788 1785: A l. Manuel Arrivillaga. Arroyo. Juaquin Arrechea. Jose Francisco Arrechea. Rafael Ariza. 1815-6:R. Nicolas Arevalo. Jose Rafael Ayau. 1802: A2 1821 A2 1816 S(2) 1848 R 1828 1819-20. Juan Nepomuceno Asturias. 1826: S 1850 1841.)R. Raymundo. 1828. 1829a. 1832: R 1850 1843-4. Antonio Arrivillaga. 1847: S 2 . Guatemala. 1850: A2 1851 1850-1: R 1823 R 1849 A3 1818 1808. Avila. 1828: R. 1788-9: R 1812 1811-2: R. Carlos (Abila) 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.Appendix K: Town Councilors. 1820b:A2. 1784-1850 (cont. Mariano Arrivillaga. 1816: A2(3) 1789 1784-5. Arrivillaga. Pedro Jose Arrido. Jose Pablo Asturias. Domingo Antonio Arrivillaga y Coronado. 1804:S. 1842: A2 1829 1810:S. 1850 (ren. Lie.) NAME Arevalo. Pedro. Jose Ignacio Asturias. Victoriano Arroyave. L. Cayetano Arrivillaga y Coronado. 1839b:A2 1851 R 466 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. 1845-6. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Antonio Jose Arrivillaga y Coronado. 1805:S 1842 1826-7: R. 1809a/b: A2 1834 1833-4: R 1835 S2 1841 1825: SI. Al 1837 R 1826 1821-2.1842: S I . Mariano Arrivillaga. 1849: R. Pedro (Arriza) Ariza. . Satumino del Campo Arraiz. 1849?:R 1809 1798