Bierck - The Struggle For Abolition in Gran Colombia

The Struggle for Abolition in Gran Colombia
Author(s): Harold A. Bierck, Jr.

Source: The Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Aug., 1953), pp. 365-386
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2509585
Accessed: 30-05-2018 22:32 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2509585?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Hispanic American Historical Review
This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Wed, 30 May 2018 22:32:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE STRUGGLE FOR ABOLITION IN
GRAN COLOMBIA
HAROLD A. BIERCK, JR.*
In February, 1816, Bolivar and Alexandre Petion agreed

to a. strange barter. The mulatto president-dictator of the
world's first Negro republic exchanged several thousand
muskets, gunpowder, ball and flint, a printing press, and pro-
visions for Bolivar's promise that if he should be successful
in his attempt to liberate Venezuela lie would free all slaves
there and in every other land where his banners might fly.'
In June, 1816, the Liberator issued his first proclamation of
emancipation; in July came another, followed by a third in
1818.2 These actions were in part incorporated, along with
a system of manumission, in the law of 1821. But a. persistent
and obstinate reluctance to accept the law, coupled with a
desire to escape the taxation devices established to repay the
slave-owner, forced the issuing of further decrees in 1822,
1823, 1827, and 1828. Owing to a conflict between pro-slavery
and anti-slavery groups, the laws providing for manumission
were not fully enforced.
Bolivar 's initial action concerning liberation stemmed
from his having given his word, from his desire to attract
supporters, and from his conviction that slavery was a social
evil. In 1815 he had written that the master-slave relation-
ship of the colonial era was of such benefit to the Negro that
no difference in color could alter the reciprocal fraternal re-
lations of the races of Spanish America; yet he admitted
* The author is associate professor of history at The University of North
Carolina-Ed.
1 Bolivar to Petion, February 8, 1816, Vicente Lecuna, ed., Cartas del
libertador (11 vols., Caracas and New York, 1929-1941), I, 225; Franqois
Dalencour, La fondation de [a republique d 'Haiti par Alexandre (Port-au-Prince,
1944), p. 14, quoting Beaubrun Ardouin, Etudes sur l'histoire d 'Haiti, VIII,
180-187; see also Archivo Nacional de Colombia (hereinafter cited as ANC):
Secci6n Miscelaneaa de la Republica, Vol. 201, wherein the Bolivar-Petion corre-
spondenee is located.
2 Lecuna, op. cit. I, 213; Vicente Lecuna, ed., Proc lamas y discursos del
libertador (Caracas, 1939), pp. 148, 185-188.
366 THE HISPANIC AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW
that many blacks had joined the royalist armies to war upon
the white patriots.3 Visions of racial equality, however,
were not original with him. A radical group in Venezuela
in 1797 had called for abolition,4 and Antonio Villavicencio,
a New Granadan, advocated in Seville, in 1809, the extinction
of slavery through the freeing of children born after a certain
date.' Three years later, from the Cauca Valley in New
Granada-a major slave area-came petitions from slaves
themselves requesting liberation. In 1813, probably inspired
by a committee in the city of Medellin,6 Juan de Corral wrote
to the chief executive of the New Granadan confederation that
slavery was a crime and that its elimination by congressional
action was vital to the success of the independence move-
ment.7 But the Congress stated it had no authority to act,
and recommended that each province of the confederation
should thoroughly examine the proposal in the light of the
possible effects of liberation on the social order and on mining
and agriculture.8 In March, 1814, Corral, then dictator of the
province of Antioquia, urged action on its legislature which,
on April 20, 1814, passed the first legislation respecting man-
umission in New Granada.9 The sixteen articles of this act,
drafted by Felix Restrepo, declared that all new-born slaves
were to be freed when they reached the age of sixteen. Adult
Negroes were to be liberated by purchase with funds raised
by taxes on slave owners.'0
Although he was not the first to urge emancipation,
Bolivar, following the practice of Francisco de Miranda and
3Lecun3a, ed., Cartas del libertador, I, 213.
4"Ordenanzas de la conspiraci6n de Gual y Espana, 1797," Pedro Grases, La
conspiracin de Gual y Espaiia y el ideario de la independencia, (Caracas, 1949),
pp. 175-176.
rJ. D. Monsalve, Antonio Villavicencio . . . (2 vols., Bogotd, 1920), II, 412;
Eduardo Posada, La esclavitud en Colombia (Bogota, 1933), p. 27.
6 Posada, op. cit., p. 33.
7Corral to President of the . . . Union, December 12, 1813, Simon B. O'Leary,
ed., Memorias del General O'Leary (33 vols., Caracas, 1879-1914), XIII, 494.
8}Eduardo Posada, ed., El congress de las Provincias Unidias (Bogota, 1924),
pp. 75-76.
9 Posada, La eselavitud en Colombia, pp. 40-41; Jose M. Restrepo, Historia de
la revolueidn de la republican de Colombia en la Amieica meridional (4 vols.,
Besanqon, 1858), I, 247-248.
101bid., 247; Posada, La esclav'itud en Colombia, p. 41.
THE STRUGGLE FOR ABOLITION IN GRAN COLOMBIA 367
of Jose Tomas Boves, put into effect the working concept that
if the Negroes sincerely desired freedom they would be will-
ing to fight and die for it. His decree of 1816 stated: "The
new citizen who refuses to take up arms in order to carry
out the sacred duty of defending his liberty, will remain in
servitude as will his children under fourteen years of age, his
woman, and his aged parents." All Negro males from four-
teen to sixty years of age were called upon to fight or remain
in bondage." Bolivar 's proclamations granted freedom only
to those who cared to risk their lives. Few slaves heeded the
call, but their free brethren responded more williiigly.'2 The
apparent dislike for military life on the part of the slaves
of the Venezuelan coastal region was not shared by Negro
freedmen and by those of mixed blood. The pardo, or person
of color, had served in the colonial militia, but his lighter hue
did not endear him to the whites and therein lies another tale
-one of social inequalities and of white fear of the pardos.13
In 1818, Bolivar called delegates to a congress at An-
gostura to create a new nation-Colombia-to be composed
of present-day Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador. On Feb-
ruary 15, 1819, in his famous address to the Congress, the
Liberator reviewed the past and present of slavery, com-
menting upon "The dark mantle of barbarous and profane
slavery ... " that once "covered the Venezuelan earth...
He went on to say that the freed slaves had "forged the in-
struments of their captivity into weapons of freedom. . ." and
pleaded for congressional confirmation of his earlier procla-
mations.'4 The Congress took ten months to reach a de-
Cision on this impassioned plea. In March, 1819, one deputy
pointed out in debate that the Liberator's proclamations
could not be enforced until Congress had passed legislation
to control the liberty of the slaves as they were "not M>-
customed to freedom" and cautioned that the fate of Vene-
"A los habitalntes de Rio Caribe, Cardipano y Carinco, Julne 2, 1816, Lecuna,
ed., Proclamas y discuasos, pp. 148-149.
12 Bolivar to General Marion, goberilador del departamento de los Cayos, Junle
27, 1816, Lecuna, ed., Cartas del libertador, I, 241.
13 Lecuia, ed., Procla'moas y discursos, pp. 164-165.
14 Ibid:., pp. 231-232.
zuelan agriculture depended on their labor.'5 A committee

was appointed to study the matter, but not until July did it
report a bill"' in keeping with the principle of equality
affirmed in the draft constitution which was the main accom-
plishment of the Congress of Ang-ostura.17 Incidentally, the
first discussion of slavery legislation was interrupted by a
deputy who felt it more important to take up the mysterious
presence of several bodies in the river.'8 Early in 1820, the
president of the Congress was asked to reconcile the differ-
ences of the pro-slavery and anti-slavery groups,19 and on
January 11, a decree regulating the freedom of the slaves was
adopted. It provided for gradual emancipation because it
was deemed "necessary to make them men before making
them citizens. " The " sacred principle that no man can be the
property of another " was championed and the slave-trade
was outlawed. This decree stated however, that it should not
be enforced until the next congress had passed suitable en-
abling legislation; that abolition by law was not equivalent
to freedom in fact; and that a status quo with regard te
slavery must be maintained until the Congress of Cu1iuta.,
scheduled to meet in 1821, could assemble.20
In the interim, Bolivar continued to recruit slaves for his
army, crossed the Andes, defeated the Spalliards at Boyac',
and was planning still greater efforts. In so doing he joined
hands and forces with the New Granadan general Francisco
de Paula Santander. Bolivar, determined to oust the Span-
iards, ordered the New Granadan, already faced with the
task of raising funds for the patriot army and of maintaining
agricultural and mining production, to raise a force of five
thousand slaves from the western New Granadan regions of
Popayan, Antioquia, and Choco.2' Santander objected. He
argued that to do so would unbalance the economy of the
"Roberto Cortazar and Luis Augusto Cuervo, eds., Congreso de Angostura.
Libro de actas (Bogota, 1921), pp. 20-21.
10 Ibid., pp. 102, 132. '7 Ibid., p. 126.
18 Ibid., p. 203. '9 Ibid., p. 276.
20 Ibid., pp. 279-282.
21 Bolivar to Santander, October 10, 1819, Enrique Ortega Ricaurte, ed.
Bolivar y Santander (Bogota, 1940), p. 14; idem to iden, February 8, 1820,
Lecuna, ed., Cartas del libertador, II, 135.
country and suggested that racial disturbances might result

as well.22 Ever adamant on this point, Bolivar reasoned that
the recruiting of blacks should not be confused with gen-
eral emancipation.23 He stressed that his instructions
granted freedom only to those Negroes qualified to fight.
"We need," he said, "robust, vigorous men who are ac-
cuistomed to hardship and fatigue; men who will embrace the
cause and the service with enthusiasm, men who will identify
their interest with the public interest and men for whom
death means little less than life itself." In this letter of
April, 1820, addressed to Santander, he pointed out the
Langer of permitting large groups of men in bondage to
exist in a free society. "Is it fair," he questioned, "that
only free men should die for the liberation of the slaves? Is
it not proper that the slaves should acquire their rights on
the battlefield and that their dangerous numbers should be
lessened byT a process both just and effective? In Venezuela
we have seen the free population die and the slave survive.
I know not whether or not this is prudent, but I do know that,
unless we recruit slaves in Cuindinamarea, they will outlive
us again."24
It must be kept in mind that Bolivar was committed to
emancipation, for it had become part and parcel of his appeal
to the masses of Venezuela and New Granada. He saw in lib-
eration both an inherent good and a political lever against the
enemy, but he also saw in armed service an opportunity to
lessen the number of Negroes. The spectre of Haiti was ever
present in the minds of the Venezuelan whites, for, as Bolivar
wrote to Santander in May, 1820, "The greed of the colonists
[in Haiti] caused that revolution, after the French Republic
decreed emancipation and the colonists spurned it. " He
called upon Santander to convince slave-owners that gold
and silver were less precious than the existence of the re-
public.25 But Santander was confronted with a serious prob-
lem in the matter of compensation to owners. His instruc-
22 Restrepo, op. cit., III, 19.
23 Bolivar to Santander, April 20, 1820, Lecuna, ed., Cartas del libertador, II,
149.
24 Idemn to ideemn April 20, 1820 (second letter of same date), ibid., II, 150-151.
25 Iden? to idlem, Ma y 30, 1820, ibid., II, 180.
tions ordering the recruiting of slaves had garnered nothing

but complaints,26 and from the Choco6 mining area came pe-
titions charged with resentment at what was termed a foolish
measure which would heighten the growing labor problems.
One petitioner asked, "What advantages will the state gain
by this precipitous emancipation' of the slaves" ? In his
opinion they were not ready for freedom and should be kept
in the mines.27 Another comment, composed by the lawy
and jurist Dr. Vicente Azuero, praised the principle of free-
dom but questioned the wisdom of depriving the owners of
their only means of livelihood, concluding that a "sword in
the hand of a Negro is like a sword in the hand of a child. S28
Jose Concha, military commandant of the Cali region, wrote
to Santander that the slaves had completely misunderstood
Bolivar's directive and that great disorder reigned in the
province.29 On the strength of these and other objections
Santander ordered the return to the mines of all Negroes -not
needed in the army and temporarily terminated enlistment of
slaves in the Cauca region.30 In all, close to three thousand
Negroes were recruited during 1819 and 1820 in western New
Granada.31 Further drafts had to await congressional legis-
lation, but the use of slaves in the army was not to be
abandoned.
The year 1821 was momentous for Gran Colombia and
for the anti-slavery cause. Bolivar conquered the Spanish
army at Carabobo and freed Venezuela. The Congress of
Cuicuta wrote into law the gradual manumission of all slaves.
Shortly before a request came from Bolivar that all new-born
infants be freed,32 Dr. Felix Restrepo, the New Granadan
proponent of emancipation, was permitted to read his draft
of a law for the abolition of slavery which was promptly ac-
eentecl by Congress as a basis for diseussionA33 RestreDo
28 See acknowledgment of circular letter in Jose Concha to Minister of W
and Treasury, June 18, 1820, ANC, Misc. de la Rep., Vol. 201.
27 Petition of cura of Citar', 1820, ibid.
28 Ibid. 20 August 26, 1820, ibid.
20 Marginal notes of Francisco de Paula S
Azuero and Jose Concha to Santander, June 6 and September 20, 1820; Concha
to Minister of War and Treasury, October 8, 1820, ibid.
31-Restrepo, op. cit., III, 20. 22O'Leary, ed., op. cit., XVIII, 387.
33 Cortdzar and Cuervo, eds., Congreso de C,6cuta, p. 202.
pleaded his case so eloquently that several deputies rose and

announced the freeing of all their slaves. "There was re-
peated," recorded the secretary of the Congress, "wave
after wave of applause for the manumitors and the venerable
author of the project of emancipation." Objections followed
and Jose Maria del Castillo, soon to become the first minister
of the treasury, questioned the legality of the discussion and
expressed a fear that the vital issues would be overlooked.
To another it appeared that slaves had been too readily
credited with the capacity to become Christians.34 During
the debates that followed, most of Restrepo's propositions
were accepted, but the property-minded deputies effected
many changes in the procedure of manumission. The
final product of these deliberations bears little resemblance
to Bolivar's early proclamations. In fact, the ley de imtantutmi-
sion, of July 21, 1821, is patterned after the New Granada
formula of 1814.35
The preamble to the law restated the basic principles that
reason, justice, and sane politics make it incumbent upon a
republican government to alleviate degradation and misery
in all classes of humanity. But this end, it was held, must
come gradually in order that the peace of the nation and the
rights of proprietors should not be endangered. In brief, the
law called for the freeing of all slave children born after the
law was published in the provincial capitals and provided that
each child must work for the owner of his mother until he
attained eighteen years of age.36 Restrepo revealed that it
cost only one real a day to feed a slave in Antioquia while the
daily wage was four reales.37 An ingenious mechanism was
established for the freeing of adult slaves-the chief element
of which was a junta or committee of manumission empowered
to collect inheritance taxes of 3 per cent on one-fifth of the
inheritances of children; one-third of those of parents, aunts,
and uncles; 100 per cent of those of collateral heirs; and 10
per cent on those of non-related heirs.38 Attempts to provide
Ibid., pp. 205-206.
3' For the law in full see Codificaci6n nacional de todas las eyes de Colombia
desde el anio de 1821 . . . (26 vols., Bogota, 1924-), I, 14-17.
36 Cortizar and Cuervo, eds., Congreso de Cltcuta, pp. 211, 213, 243.
37Ibid., 243, 254. 38 Ibid., 286.
compensation for the owners of previously freed slaves were

defeated.39 Seemingly, the anti-slavery group had won the
day in spite of complaints during debates that Negroes were
troublesome by nature and guilty of such crimes as assault..
abortion, infanticide, and suicide. Restrepo assuaged the
anxiety of those who feared economic loss by stressing his
belief that economic development would be greater in the
slaveless highland areas and that personal freedom for the
Negroes would restrain their conduct.40
Ait Santalnder's request the Congress of Cucuta also ruled
on the matter of military service. Negroes were to be ad-
mitted to the army, provided their owners were indemnified
from the funds of the juntas.4` In view of the troubles en-
countered in 1819-1820 with slave recruiting, this decision was
not made public. Only slaves who presented themelves
voluntarily and who had made arrangements with their
masters were to be enlisted.42 Recruiting of slaves continued,
but with the stipulation that their proprietors be compensated
as required by law,43 yet Bolivar did not promise freedom to
those who came to camp as Congress had not given him
authority to do so." Most of the ex-slavTes who continued to
serve in the army had enlisted before 1822. Their masters
were not paid from the manumission funds but were given
certificates making the value of their slaves a part of the
national debt.45 The Caracas junta, an inquiry from which
prompted the ruling concerning payment, was further in-
formed that all juntas must make clear in their public listings
39 Ibid., 225, 291-292. 40Ibid., 232.
41 Jose Ignacio de Marquez to Vice-President of the Republic, October 14,
1821, Archivo General de la Nacion, Venezuela (hereinafter cited as AGN):
Section de Sueltos. The Sueltos section comprises a group of unsorted and as yet
unclassified manuscripts located on the top floor of the archive.
42 Pedro Bricefio Mendez to Carlos Soublette, December 3, 1821, ibid.
43Bolivar to Santander, January 5, 1822, Lecuna, ed., Cartas del libertador,
III, 3. For enforcement of this order see Tomas C. Mosquera to Secretary of
Interior, January 18, 1828, ANC, Misc. de la Rep., Vol. 201.
44 Bolivar to Vice-Presidelnt of the Republic, n.d., ibid.
"J. M. del Castillo to Intendant of Venezuela., November 29, 1825, AGN,
Sueltos; marginal note on petition of Maria de Jesus Ribas, February 11, 1828,
mentioning the government ruling of September 9, 1825, ANC, Misc. de la Rep.,
Vol. 1; see also Ignacio Torres, Intendant of the Department of Asuay, to Secre-
tary of Treasury, January 13, 1826, ibid., Vol. 201.
the difference between pre-1822 and post-1822 liberations.46

Bolivar gathered free Negroes and slaves for his army up to
the time of his departure for Peru47 and permitted recruiting
of slaves for naval duty.48 His last action respecting manu-
mission before he sailed from Colombia in the autumn of
1823 was to decree the liberation of all slaves illegally im-
ported since July, 1821.49
By congressional action the principle implied in Bolivar's
promise to Petion had become the law of Colombia in July,
1821. The new and broadly defined machinery of partial
and gradual manumission placed responsibility for success
or failure in the hands of local committeemen. The story of
the organization and operation of the local juntas illustrates
the inevitable conflict between those who sought to retain as
long as possible a right that was theirs by time and custom
and of those who were moved by the new, compelling ideas of
equality and democratic procedure. Initial difficulties in the
enforcement of the law became apparent late in 1821. Only
in the larger towns were juntas appointed by the governors,
following the publication of the law. In Ecuador trouble was
experienced due to "various inconveniences and difficulties"
which were only overcome seven months after Bolivar issued
verbal orders for action.50 Minor cantons, many in districts
with large slave populations, lacked juntas in 1828.51 But,
where juntas were created, questions regarding the ever vital
matter of the tax poured into gubernatorial offices and sped
thence to the intendants or departmental heads to be promptly
46 J. M. Restrepo to Intendant of Venezuela, September 10, 1825, AGN,
Sueltos.
47 Petition of Nicolas Barba y Borja, Museo de Historia, Quito (hereinafter
cited as MH:Quito), Manumicion de Eselavos, Vol. 1.
48 Tomas C. Wright to jefe politico of Guayaquil, February 26, 1828, Archivo
Municipal de Guayaquil (hereinafter cited as AMG), Representantes, 1827-1829.
" Ignaeio Torres to Secretary of Interior, February 13, 1823, ANC, Misc. de
la Rep., Vol. 201.
"0 V. Aguirre, Intendant of the Department of Quito, to Secretary of Interior,
February 6 and March 21, 1823, ibid.
51 Pedro J. Abello to Intendant of Venezuela, April 4, 1827, AGN, Sueltos;
Jose Maria de Saenz, Prefect of the Department of Ecuador, to President of the
junta de inanumisi6n, Quito, December 31, 1829, MH Quito, Manumicion de
EscIavos, Vol. 1.
retransmitted to Bogota for national executive opinion. The

law was bare of detail and administrative experience was not
a part of the creole inheritance. Thus, before long, the first
of many executive interpretative decrees was issued.
Santander and his Council of State ordered, in February,
1822, that the 3 and 10 per cent levies be exacted on property
listed in the inventories of the property of deceased persons,
and that they be collected at the time of liquidation of an
estate or when an approximate evaluation had been reached.
When a delay in accounting occurred the juez de la casa was
to enforce a partial collection of the inheritance tax and to
obtain a promissory note for the remainder.52 This decree
apparently confused rather than clarified. The central gov-
ernment received few reports of junta activities and in De-
cember, 1822, circularized the intendants ordering immediate
accountings of the operation of the 1821 law and 1822 decree.53
Of concern to humanitarians was the treatment of slaves
Army recruiting, desertion, flight, scarcity of food, and sep-
aration of families caused a wave of disorder in the Cauca
region which the owners matched with severity of punish-
ment.54 Bolivar himself did not sympathize with the mas-
ters,55 and the slaves protested their ill-treatment by appeal-
ing to local officials for protection.56 Apprized of the dis-
order, Santander and his cabinet drafted a "Regulation for
the Good Treatment of Slaves" which laid down working
hours and diet and set up a legal basis for judging both slave
and owner complaints.57 The regulation was speedily pub-
lished along with the provisions of the Spanish code relating
to the same topic,58 and later in the same year it was further
52 Codificaci6n nacional, VII, 56; Mlariano Montilla to Secretary of Interior,
February 27, 1822, ANC, Misc. de la. Rep., Vol. 201.
"'For example see J. M. Restrepo to Intendant of Venezuela, December 7,
1822, AGN, Sueltos.
54 Jose Concha to Vice-Presidenlt of the Department of Cundinamarca, October
23, 1821, ANG, Misc. de la Rep., Vol. 201.
65 Idem to idem, January 26, 1822, ibid.
6 Mariano de B. Alvarez to Intendant of Cauca, October 20, 1822, February
4, 1823, ibid.
57 Santiago P6rez to J. M. Restrepo, February 25, ibid.
" Jos6 Concha to Secretary of Interior, November [ ?], 1822, ibid.
ruled that the bodies of all slaves must be interred at public

expense with the owners paying the usual taxes.59
These difficulties, coupled with local official ineptitude and
confusion of policy, brought public censure from some ardent
abolitionists. One pamphleteer called for the freeing of all
Colombia's 130,000 slaves by expending 18,000,000 pesos,
which amount would become part of the national debt.60
Other friends of the bondsmen freed their slaves voluntarily.
One liberated twelve because "the fate of the slaves had al-
ways touched" his heart;61 a priest freed his only servant on
Santander's birthday in honor of the "second hero of the
century, '6 and still another freed eight because they had
aided him while he was ill.63 These patriotic gestures were
widely publicized; but the fact remained that the legal system
of emancipation was weakened by inefficiency, inexperience in
government, and sullen neglect.
In August, 1823, a new decree was devised to "reduce the
various abuses" prevalent in the labors of the juntas.64 All
juntas were placed under the surveillance of the governors
and intendants "who will make them comply with the object
of their institution. "" Accounts of the junta treasurers were
to be audited by the national treasury; the governors were to
collect all amounts past due, and reports of all activities were
to be sent to the intendants for dispatch to the minister of
the interior. Lists of slaves freed were to be published in
the official gazettes. Inheritance tax funds collected in non-
slave cantons could be used by the governor to free slaves
in other cantons, and that official was authorized to compen-
58 Acuerdos del consejo de gobierno de la repfiblica de Colombia (2 vols.,
Bogota., 1940-1942), I, 51.
60 Posada., La esclavitud en Colombia, p. 69.
61 Antonio Arboleda to Secretary of Treasury, April 16, 1822, ANC,
de la Rep., Vol. 201.
62 Gaceta de Colombia, April 6, December 14, 1823. The author is aware
that a great many lists of slaves freed were published in the gacetas of the day,
but he is hesitant to use same for manuscript records appear to reveal that the
published lists were not always correct.
63 Mariano del Campo La.rraonde y Valencia to Secretary of Interior, petition
dated 1823, ANC, Misc. de la Rep., Vol. 201.
64 Acuerdos del consejo, I, 143.
6s Codificaci6n national, VII, 155-156.
sate owners whose slaves had voluntarily entered the army

prior to the publication of the law of July, 1821. This decree.
like the others, was formally circulated and dutifully made
public by the intendants.
The fact that Santander was forced to issue explanatory
decrees constitutes partial proof that the practice of slavery,
deeply rooted in the daily life of many Colombians, was
difficult to eradicate. The domestic servant, the farm hand,
the mining gang, the stevedore all were part of the established
system of labor; moreover, heirs were not anxious to pay
taxes on their inheritances, especially when that tax would be
used to deprived them of a comfort or means of support. The
law of manumission suffered as much during the years
1823-1826 from the persistence of custom as from the com-
plications created by new democratic methods and wartime
economic conditions. Employing delaying tactics, heirs de-
bated the evaluation of their property, avoided filing wills
or simply put off payment pleading lack of ready cash. The
experience of one Juan Vicente Echesuria in Venezuela is ai
case in point. Late in 1826 he reported that he was unable
to collect anything. Heirs or their representatives ignored
his efforts to collect, and it was his frank opinion that the
laws "were and will be illusory" unless more effective meas-
ures were adopted. He enclosed a number of wills, property
lists, and lists of heirs who were in default; he begged advice
on how to determine what was due and how to overcome the
legal barrage which persistently threw up a shower of ex-
ceptions and delays.07 The intendant of Venezuela advised
that he turn over collection problems to the municipal govern-
ment, but made no suggestions as to the other complica-
tions.68 These subterfuges were widespread by December,
1825, for in that month the minister of interior confessed that
wills were being withheld from the juntas and that executors
66 For a typical letter of acknowledgment see Juan Paz del Castillo, intendant
of the Department of Guayaquil, September 14, 1824, ANC, Misc. de la Rep.,
Vol. 201.
67 Claudio Viana to Intendant of Venezuela, December 12, 1826 ,AGN,
Sueltos.
68 Jos6 Escalona to jefe politico, canton of Petare, December 23, 1826) ibid.
were pleading lack of funds.69 In some areas, notably that

of Quito, juntas had not begun to function until 1824.70 Tn
December of that year the intendant of the department com-
plained of the "lack of activity on the part of the junta" in
enforcing the law,7' and took it upon himself to reconstitute
that body.72
Failure, in spite of the difficulties mentioned, was not uni-
versal. Repeated calls were issued by the Bogota authorities
for reports on slaves freed73 and various departmental heads
forwarded their lists in 1824, 1825, and 1826. In the depart-
ment of Azuay, in Ecuador, thirty were freed in the years
1824 and 1825 at a cost of 3,790 pesos.74 Eleven, worth 2,190
pesos were liberated in the province of Quito in 1826.7' The
province of Bogota manumitted twenty-two in 1822, one in
1823, and thirty-three in 1824 (that province had a total slave
population of 1,935 in 1821).76 The port city of La Guayra
freed only seven in 1823 and 1824.77 The small number freed
combined with the problems of enforcement led to additional
private and public suggestions that the laws again be re-
vised.78 Bolivar was to attempt his hand at legislation in
1827, for, although he was in Peru, he had not lost interest
in the fate and fortunes of the colored race in Colombia.
"My sister, who is very astute," Bolivar wrote Santander
in April, 1825, "writes me that Caracas is uninhabitable be-
69 J. M. Restrepo to Intendant of Venezuela, January 6, 1826, quote
Manuel Landa to jefe politico, canton of Petare, February 9, 1826, ibid.: Jose
Escalona to j'aez politico, canton of Petare, July 13, 1825, ibid.
70 Vicente Aguirre to Secretary of Interior, February 6, 1823, March 21, 1823,
ANC, Misc. de la Rep., Vol. 201.
71 Pedro Murguetio to jefe politico, Quito, December 15, 1826, MH:Quito,
Oficios del Intendente-Gobernador al Cabildo, 1827.
72 Order of Pedro Murguetio, Decemnber 15, 1826, ANC, Misc. de la Rep., Vol.
201.
73 J. M. Restrepo to Intendant of Venezuela, Mareh 7, 1824, AGN, Sueltos;

Ignacio Torres to Secretary of Interior, January 9, 1826, ANC, Misc. de la Rep.,
Vol. 201.
74 Idem to ideem, December 22, 1825, November 4, 1826, ibid.
70Estado general (Printed), 1826, ibid.
76 Posada, La esclavitud en Colombia, p. 72.
77 Report of the Secretary of the Municipality, La Guayra, March 27, 1827,
AGN, Sueltos.
78J. M. Ortega, Intendant of Cauca, to Secretary of Interior, Februa

1825, ANC, Misc. de la Rep., Vol. 201.
cause of the troubles and threats of the " v pardocracy." e79

This threatened rule by the pardo element gave the Liberator
much concern. Although hie always favored emancipation he
did not advocate more than legal equality for persons of color.
"Equality under the law is not, enough in view of those
people's current mood," he informed his vice-president.
"They want absolute equality on both social and public levels.
Next they will demand that they, the pardos, rule. This is a
very natural obsession that will ultimately lead to extermina-
tion of the privileged class. This, I say, requires consider-
able thought, which I shall never tire of recommending."80
Similar complaints also had reached Bolivar from Guayaquil
and Cartagena.81 But the fear of black or tan supremacy did
not lessen his drive to eradicate slavery. In his mind and
in those of others, the two castes were separated. The mulat-
to with his white blood was in an entirely different category
from the black slave. The former was a threat; the latter a
child. Thus, though concerned about "pardocracy," he was
able to plead for the adoption of manumission in Peru and
Bolivia.
In his address to the constituent congress of the infant Re-
public of Bolivia he attacked slavery as an inhuman insti-
tution and challenged anyone to "violate the sacred doctrine
of equality," concluding his plea for liberation with these
words
If there were no divine Protector of innocence and freedom, I should

prefer the life of a great-hearted lion, lording it in the wilderness
and the forests, to that of a captive in the keep of an infamous
tyrant, a party to his crimes, provoking the wrath of Heaven. But
no! God has willed freedom to mlan, who protects it in order to exer-
cise the divine faculty of free will.82
Five days later, as if struck by the impact of his own words,

he cautioned Santander: "Those who are intolerant and
those who love slavery will read my speech in horror, but I
was obliged to speak in this manner because I think I am in
79 Leeua., ed., Cartas del ltibertador, V, 12 (June 28, 1825).
80 Ibid., V, 307 (April 7, 1825).
`'Ibid.; Bolivar to Juan Paz del Castillo, March 25, 1826, ibid., V, 262.
82 Lecuna, ed., Proclainas y discursos, p. 332.
the right and because good policy, in this instance, is backed

by truth. 83 The race question continued to trouble him and
in August, 1826, he viewed the matter as a "bottomless pit"
where reason was lost upon entrance.84 The following month
lie sailed north to Colombia.
The beginning of the year 1827 found Bolivar again in
his native land. A solution was reached in the conflict with
Jose Antonio Paez, but no simple remedies were available for
coping with social and economic ills. Heeding the pleas of
the friends of manumission, the Liberator made use of the
dictatorial powers he had assumed in 1826. In March of the
following year he decreed that an accounting of all slaves
freed since the publication of the law of 1821 be sent to him
personally.85 The results were largely negative. From
Petare, for example, came a report that the law had not been
enforced. A junta had been established there in 1822 but had
done nothing for its head was "absolutely inept," and not a
single slave had gained freedom in five years.86 The town
of Calabozo reported the freeing of only three during the
same period.87 Rio Chico reported that no junta had been
set up and that the political head of the town was absent,
having gone to manage his hacienda.88 Revelations concern-
ing junta personnel problems were numerous. In Caracas,
when the treasurer of the local junta was appointed to a gov-
ernment post, the secretary found it impossible to call a meet-
ing to accept his resignation for the members were out of town
and the treasurer departed without bothering to turn in his
records.89
In April, 1827, Bolivar, having received innumerable peti-
tions from slaves, but realizing that insufficient time had
elapsed for the arrival of the reports, ordered Jose Revenga,
83 Lecuna, ed., Cartas del libertador, V, 323 (May 25, 1826).
84 Bolivar to PAez, August 4, 1826, ibid., VI, 32.
85 Jose Revenga to Intendant of Venezuela, May 16, 1827, AGN, Sueltos.
86 P. Alaveddra, jefe politico, to Intendant of Venezuela, March 27, 1827, ibid.
87 Junta de mnaaunisi6n. to Intendant, March 30, 1827, ibid.
8 Pedro J. Abello to Intendant, April 4, 1827, ibid.
8 Juan Meseron, Secretary of the junta de manimsisi6n, to Intendant, March
31, 1827; Antonio Toro to President of the junta de manumisi6n, March 30, 1827,
ibid.
his secretary-general, to spur the effort. The governors were

instructed to better the lot of the slaves and to have the
juntas add suggestions for improving the laws to their list-
ings of slaves liberated.90 This order was circulated but
compliance was weak. On this occasion Guarinas reported
that a junta was now in existence. but had been illegally ap-
pointed and no funds had been collected.91 Ocumare advised
turning the collection functions over to the treasury officials,92
and Petare confessed that the local junta was hopeless and
that no funds could be collected until the jefe politico had
been given absolute power to actY93 From Rio Chico came a
reply that they were too busy to send the report.4 In May,
the intendant of the Department of Venezuela himself re-
ported. Only six towns, he confessed, had replied to the
March order and "on the whole, the juntas had done vir-
tually nothing to enforce the law." They write of a thousand
difficulties, he continued, which prevent the operation of the
juntas and the failure to collect the taxes. "In this capital
there is little interest," and "I am certain that the cause of
this trouble lies in the organization of these bodies and that
their personnel have no interest in the enforcement of the law
and in many cases they are opposed to it." His personal
opinion was that the price paid for slaves to be freed was
now too low,95 for Venezuela was experiencing one of its
many spirals of inflation.
The Liberator's remedy for these ills was another decree,
issued on June 28, 1827, and aimed principally at the faulty
collection methods employed by the juntas. A prefatory
statement admitted the lack of success of the 1821 law but
contended that "the public wellbeing" demands "that the
holy ends proposed shall not become illusory." These ends
were to be accomplished by ordering payment of the inheri-
tance tax within one year and arbitration for cases where
"insurmountable obstacles" kept the inheritance indivisible.
90 Jose Revenga to Intendant of Venezuela, April 6, 1827, ibid.
91 Jos6 Antonio Garcia to Intendant, May 17, 1827, ibid.
92 Claudio Viana, jefe politico, to Intendant, March 30, 1827, ibid.
9 P. Alvddra to Intendant, June 12, 1827, ibid.
94 Pedro J. Abello to Intendant, Junoe 2, 1827, ibid.
I" Intendant of Venezuela to J. M. Reevenga, May 23 [1827], ibid.
Collection of taxes was now placed in the hands of the in-

ternal revenue agents who were to receive 4 per cent for their
efforts. If they failed, the Superior Court of the department
was to confiscate and sell all property inherited. The treat-
ment of bondsmen was also dealt with in this decree. A
slave of no monetary value was allowed his freedom or could
die at the expense of his master. Every obedient slave was
to receive suitable clothing, food, and lodging, and no more
than twenty-nine lashes were to be administered no matter
what the misdemeanor. To insure enforcement in the four
Venezuelan departments a central supervisory committee of
five was to meet in Caracas. It was to compile a list of all
slaves and owners, a new price list, direct the protective
labors of the city attorneys, name the arbiters, and go to
court to collect all funds due. Inherited property, the decree
stated, could not be held legally until the tax was paid, and
those delaying payment beyond January 3 of the year follow-
ing the death of a testator were to be fined double the original
amount of the tax. Efforts to defraud would result in the
confiscation of all property owned and a series of heavy fines
were to be imposed on all officials concerned in cases of mis-
use of funds, fraud, or negligence.96
The decree outlined above clearly reveals that the effort
had faltered in Venezuela due to a lack of supervision in the
collection of the tax. Yet one cannot but admire the in-
sistence of Bolivar in demanding that the system of manu-
mission be continued, and that the slaves should be liberated
despite a lack of cooperation on the part of the owners and
lesser governmental officials. Few would admit that they
did not care to have the slaves freed but, as long as the law
provided ways of escape and while lethargy prevailed among
the law-enforcement officers, the process of manumission
would be long drawn out. Deaths were numerous and, al-
though property held was not always easily realizable in cash,
the goods of the deceased should have contributed something
to the coffers of the juntas of manumission. Bolivar, the
executive and legislator, had spoken for the first time since
1818 but his words, like those of Santander, mingling with
98 Codificaci6n national, III, 275-280.
the first rumblings of revolt in Gran Colombia, were not heard

in every canton.
The attempt to tighten the collection system seemingly
increased the tricks and devices used by those who sought
to avoid or delay payment. The colonial practice of law was
not lost in the early national period. Detailed problems re-
specting deductions from estates for burial expenses of the
deceased or for slaves freed in the testaments confronted the
authorities in Quito.97 Pedro Montuifar, a prominent citizen
of the Ecuadoran capital, objected to having property in-
herited from his wife taxed at the 10 per cent rate. He raised
the interesting point as to the legal classification of the re-
lationship between wife and husband, a matter not dealt with
in the laws or decrees.98 After the Superior Court had ruled
that wives and husbands were not blood relations,09 Montuifar
was still able to avoid payment by claiming that it was im-
possible to separate his property from that of his wife.100
Jose Revenga, one-time minister of foreign affairs, stopped
all attempts to collect the levy on his inheritance from his
brother 's large estate by presenting an extremely complicated
set of books. Debts of his brother, his debts to the estate,
money owed the estate, bad debts, interest charges and a host
of other financial tangles prevented an evaluation of the prop-
erty. The Revenga case continued to be fought until the
1840's.101 Charges of peculation on the part of junta treas-
urers doubtless were more numerous than the evidence at
hand reveals,102 and changes of personnel in the juntas, and
an obviously growing reluctance of citizens to serve, were
far from uncommon.103 A report for November, 1827, of the
97 Intendant to jefe politico, September 27, 1827, MH:QtQito, Oficios del Tn-
tendente-Gobernador al Cabildo, 1827.
" Petition of Pedro Montufar, 1827; Director of the com-isi6n de manurnisiwn
to Intendant, October 29, 1827; Dr. Manuel Espinosa y Once to Intendant, Oc-
tober 3, 1827, ibid., Manumicion de Esclavos, Vol. 1.
""Ruling of corte superior, October 30, 1827, ibid.
100 "Planilla" of property, ibid.
101 Documents relating to the Revenga case, extensive in nature, are located
in both ANC, Misc., a.nd AGN, Sueltos.
102 Act of junta de manim-mision, Valenuia, Venezuela, Januuary 20, 1827, ibid;
petition of Diego Escoribuela, Caracas, ibid.
108 F. Aranda, President of the junta de manumisi6n, Caracas, to Intendant,
May 9, 1827, ibid.; I. Torres, Intendant of Ecuador, to the Municipality, De-
cember 30, 1828, MH: Quito, Manumiei6n de Eselavos, Vol. 1.
Caracas junta revealed that twenty-three individuals owed

5,716 pesos, 4 reales.'04 Although these troubles continued,
many juntas were functioning, but dozens rather than hun-
dreds of slaves were being purchased and freed.
During the years 1827 and 1828 reform was Bolivar 's
watchword and more decrees his method. His decree of June,
1828, constitutes a final catch-all of Colombian manumission
legislation. Intendants and governors were given full powers
to supervise all juntas and to determine amounts owed. Junta
members were to be fined for negligence of duty, and col-
lectors were to receive 4 per cent, treasurers 2?/2 per cent,
and secretaries of the juntas 1 /2per cent of all funds secured.
Further to centralize the manumission effort the jefe politico
was to head the junta and government attorneys were to
prosecute those who did not pay the tax.'05 A subsidiary
ruling of September, 1828, stated that junta members-they
received no salary-might resign after two years of service.
They were not to hold any other position while serving, nor
were they to accept any other appointments for a two-year
period.'06 By executive interpretation, all funds were to be
collected in the canton where the deceased had held the largest
amount of property.107
The myriad domestic and foreign problems which resulted
in the breakup of the republic in 1829-1830 made difficult the
enforcement of the 1828 decree. For that matter, the in-
tendants and governors found it increasingly harder to en-
force any legislation. The leaders were occupied with more
vital matters; a Peruvian invasion had to be defeated, local
revolts put down, and a new constitution was sought. The
effect of Negro revolts of earlier years was also making itself
felt. Scattered uprisings had occurred in Venezuela,108 and
repeated flurries took place in the mining area of Rio Santiago
10 Rasgos de las personas acreedores al fondon de manumicion, Caracas, No

vember 7, 1827, ANC, Manumision, I.
105 Codiftcacwin nacional, III, 376-380.
106Ibid., III, 417-418.
107 Circular order of Minister of Interior, November 15, 1828, ibid., 440-441.
108 F. R. de Toro to Secretary of the Interior, February 6, 1824, ANC, Misc.
de la Rep., Vol. 201; Bolivar to Mariano Montilla, November 6, 1827, to J. A.
Paez, November 26, 1827, Lecuna, ed., Cartas del libertador, VII, 67, 185.
and in the port town of Esmeraldas'09 in Ecuador in 1825 and

1826. An increased wave of insubordination,"10 and the at-
tempted revolt of the pardo, Admiral Padilla,"' led Bolivar
to speak of the "natural enmity of the people of color," and
to state that a Negro revolt was "a thousand times worse
than a Spanish invasion. p 112 But the pattern of manumission
was too finely woven to change the design. Slaves had rights
and they used them, especially in petitioning the juntas for
freedom"3 and in seeking redress against their owners from
their protectors, the town attorneys. Meanwhile, although in
the face of ever increasing reluctance, juntas in the larger
cities continued to operate, mainly through the freeing of fe-
male servants."14 In 1826, fifteen were liberated in the prov-
inces of Cuenca and Loja, and nineteen in 1827."15 The year
1830 saw but fifteen freed in the province of Bogota', and only
three in Antioquia."16 Typical of the progress being made in
1829 is the comment of the prefect of Guayaquil that, though
he had ordered the enforcement of Bolivar's 1828 decree, he
could report nothing concerning manumission."17 In Quito, the
treasurer of the junta protested that the priests were not sub-
mitting the death lists called for in the same decree,118 and
the intendant ordered that all laws must be enforced regard-
less of the comportment of slaves and the grumbling against
manumission.119 From the Department of Boyaca came
109 Tomas Cipriano Mosquera to Secretary of Interior, September 7, 1825,
January 8, 23, 1826, ANC, Misc. de la Rep., Vol. 201.
110 For example see Intendant of Quito to jefe politico, Quito, February 23,
1827, MH:Quito, Ofieios del Intendente-Gobernador al Cabildo, 1827.
"I Rafael M. Mesa Ortiz, Colornbianos ilustres (5 vols., BogotA and Ibague,
1916-1929), V, 250 ff.
112 Bolivar to Paez, November 26, 1827; to Bricefeo Mendez, May 7, 1828,
Lecuna, ed., Cartas del libertador, VII, 85, 257.
113 Hundreds of such petitions exist in AGN, Sueltos; ANC, Misc. de la Rep.
and Peticiones y Solicitudes; MH:Quito, Manumici6n de Eselavos.
114 Report of junta de inanumisi6n, Cuenca, in I. Torres, intendant of the
Department of Azuay, n. d., ANC, Misc. de la Rep., Vol. 201.
115 Ibid. 116 Posada, La esciavitud en Coloinbia, p. 72.
117 Febres Cordero to Minister of Interior, January 5, 1830, ANC, Misc. de
la Rep., Vol. 201.
118 Manuel Moreno to President of junta de rnanumrisi6n, May
MH: Quito, Manumici6n de Eselavos, I.
"I J. M. Saenz to President of junta de rnanunmisi6n, ibid.
apologies for the incomplete listings of slaves freed, and a

profession that no slaves had been liberated in the depart-
ment's largest province for lack of funds,20 while in Vene-
zuela debate arose in various provinces as to the exact date
of publication of the 1821 law. This forced the minister of
interior to set the arbitrary date of November 1, 1821.121
The explanatory and directive decree of 1828 issued by
Bolivar carried no more weight than the similar effort of
Santander in 1822. The object of these two leaders respect-
ing manumission was the complete observance of the law. But
their efforts proved ineffective when confronted with a bul-
wark of legal technicalities and a widespread silent public
resistance to emancipation. Their desire to wipe out the
slave trade also required repeated decrees and executive ad-
monitions. In 1825, Congress had ruled that those running
slaves from Africa be executed and those introducing them
from the Antilles be imprisoned for ten years. Trade from
one Colombian port to another, however, was permitted. All
slaves illegally introduced were to be reexported.122 A treaty
with Great Britain called for mutual cooperation in defeating
the slavers,123 but a similar convention with the United States
was rejected by the Senate of that country.'24 Colombia's
proposal that the abolition of the African slave trade be
considered at the Panama Congress precipitated a major
debate on that issue in the United States Congress in 1825."25
Notwithstanding Colombia's interest in ridding the world of
slaving, it continued in the Colombian area. In January, 1828,
120 Crist6bal de Vergara to Secretary of Interior, May 30, 1829, ANC, Mise.
de la Rep., Vol. 1.
121 J. M. Restrepo to Prefect of Venezuela, March 2, 1829, AGN, S
122 Codificaci6n nacional, II, 9-11; see also Vicente Veros to Secretary of
Interior, October [?], 1828, and Minister of Interior to Minister of Exterior
Relations, December 22, 1828, ANC MAlise. de la Rep., Vol. 201.
123 James F King, "The Latin-American Republics and the Suppression of
the Slave Trade, " THE HISPANIC-AMMICAN HISTORICAL REview, XXIV (August,
1944), 387-411, treats at length with British efforts to suppress the slave trade
in Latin America.
124 Ac-uerdos del consejo, I, 270; Pedro A. Zubieta, Apuntaciones sobre las
primeras misiones diplom6ticas de Colombia (Bogota, 1924) pp. 98-99.
125 J. M. Salazar to Henry Clay, November 2, 1825, William R. Manning, ed.,
Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States concerning the Independence of
the Latin-American Nations (3 vols., New York, 1925), p. 1287.
Bolivar, informed of frequent violations of the anti-slave-

trade laws, ruled that all domestics imported and sold since
1821 were to be set free. Persons bringing in domestic serv-
ants now had to post bond to assure that these slaves would
not be sold and would be taken out of the country.126
In the manumission of slaves in Gran Colombia there was
a struggle between those who wished to maintain slavery,
abetted by others who sought to escape the inheritance taxes,
and a group of liberal humanitarians who agitated for stricter
law and law enforcement. The leaders, in their efforts to
secure enforcement, were confronted with a faulty admin-
istrative system born of the change from Spanish methods to
republican procedures. Enforcement was in the hands of
those who judged the matter of manumission on personal
grounds or who simply refused or were unable to make the
effort necessary to carry out the letter of the law. Neither
pro-slavery nor anti-slavery forces carried the day. Gradual
manumission was established in law if not completely in fact.
This method of freeing the slave was to continue to be par-
tially effective in the Republics of Venezuela, New Granada,
and Ecuador.
120 Decree of January 5, 1828, quoted in full in J. M. Bestrepo to Int
of Venezuela, January 9, 1828, AGN, Sueltos.

Bierck - The Struggle For Abolition in Gran Colombia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bierck - The Struggle For Abolition in Gran Colombia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Struggle for Abolition in Gran Colombia

Author(s): Harold A. Bierck, Jr.

HAROLD A. BIERCK, JR.*

In February, 1816, Bolivar and Alexandre Petion agreed

zuelan agriculture depended on their labor.'5 A committee

country and suggested that racial disturbances might result

tions ordering the recruiting of slaves had garnered nothing

pleaded his case so eloquently that several deputies rose and

compensation for the owners of previously freed slaves were

the difference between pre-1822 and post-1822 liberations.46

retransmitted to Bogota for national executive opinion. The

ruled that the bodies of all slaves must be interred at public

sate owners whose slaves had voluntarily entered the army

were pleading lack of funds.69 In some areas, notably that

73 J. M. Restrepo to Intendant of Venezuela, Mareh 7, 1824, AGN, Sueltos;

78J. M. Ortega, Intendant of Cauca, to Secretary of Interior, Februa

cause of the troubles and threats of the " v pardocracy." e79

If there were no divine Protector of innocence and freedom, I should

Five days later, as if struck by the impact of his own words,

the right and because good policy, in this instance, is backed

his secretary-general, to spur the effort. The governors were

Collection of taxes was now placed in the hands of the in-

the first rumblings of revolt in Gran Colombia, were not heard

Caracas junta revealed that twenty-three individuals owed

10 Rasgos de las personas acreedores al fondon de manumicion, Caracas, No

and in the port town of Esmeraldas'09 in Ecuador in 1825 and

apologies for the incomplete listings of slaves freed, and a

Bolivar, informed of frequent violations of the anti-slave-

You might also like