No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
Cotton growing and textile production in the northern regions of newly independent Argentina, as in many other parts of Latin America still relatively unaffected by the industrial revolution, were linked to the gender division of labor and the type of landholdings found in agrarian societies. As early as 1970 Ester Boserup pointed out the divergent roles that women and children would play in societies based upon extensive properties farmed or ranched by slave or hired help as compared with smaller, more intensive farms and ranches. She, like many others, however, presumed that wage labor, large scale agriculture, and ranching dominated the Latin American landscape, and she emphasized the role of women compared to other family members in rural production.
1 Boserup, Ester, Woman’s Role in Economie Development (New York: St. Martin’s Press),Google Scholar esp. chap. 1.
2 In Stoner’s, K. Lynn edited volume Latinas of the Americas (New York; Garland Publishing, Inc., 1989),Google Scholar an entire chapter of the bibliography is devoted to Latin American rural development, but does not mention these issues. This bibliography focuses on works published since 1977. Esther Hermitte, an Argentine anthropologist, has explored the role of gender and family labor among weavers in Catamarca in her article: “Ponchos, Weaving, and Patron-Client Relations in Northwest Argentina,” in Stricken, A. and Greenfield, S.M. eds., Structure and Process in Latin America: Patronage, Clientage and Power Systems (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1972), pp. 159–77.Google Scholar From the perspective of historical analysis, Assadourian’s, Carlos Sampat, El sistema de la economía colonial; el merdado interior. Regiones y espacio económico (Mexico: Editorial Nueva Imagen, 1985)Google Scholar is still the most comprehensive study of the interaction of family production and patterns of trade in nineteenth-century Argentina. Chiaramonte, José Carlos in Mercaderes del Litoral. Economía y sociedad en la provincia de Corrientes, primera mitad del siglo xix (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 1991), pp. 121–23,Google Scholar tried to identify patterns of family production, but the census data was incomplete. Sàbato, Hilda in Agrarian Capitalism and the World Market, Buenos Aires in the Pastoral Age, ¡840–1890 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1990), pp. 112–14,Google Scholar also points out that small ranches were operated by family labor. The preliminary unpublished study of Ana A. Teruel, “La fabricación de textiles y la participación de la mujer en la economía de las tierras altas de la provincia de Jujuy (noroeste argentino) siglo xix,” on family sheep ranches and textile production among residents of rural Jujuy in the nineteenth century, based upon census data, shows the potential for family labor analysis within rural wool production.
3 A 1926 study of cotton production throughout the world pointed out that the fiber had been produced in a variety of situations including subsistence farming. Johnson, W.H. in Cotton and Its Production (London: Macmillan and Co., 1926),Google Scholar chaps. 6, 10, specifically cited the situation in São Paulo where cotton was grown as a subsistence crop in soils that became too barren for coffee trees. Chile, Ecuador, and Paraguay are also mentioned as countries where limited amounts of the fiber were produced.
4 “Informe de comercio de Catamarca de 1803” [appendixed document in Germán Tjarks]; and “Panorama del comercio interno del Virreinato del Río de la Plata en sus postrimerías,” Humanidades, 36(1960), 55; Saliano, Patricio [Funes, Deán Gregorio], Telégrafo Mercantil, 20 junio 1802, t. 2, 415–16,Google Scholar cited in Martínez, Pedro S., Las industrias durante el virreinato (1776–1810) (Buenos Aires: EUDEBA, 1969), p. 45.Google Scholar
5 Oviedo, Cornelio Sánchez, El algodón. Factor importante en la historia de Catamarca (Buenos Aires: Ministerio de Agricultura, Junta Nacional de Algodón, 1937), pp. 11–20.Google Scholar
6 Maceda, Ceferino Garzón, Economía del Tucumán. Economía natural y economía monetaria siglos xvi–xvii–xviii (Córdoba: Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, 1968), pp. 50–51 Google Scholar; Cushner, Nicholas P., Jesuit Ranches and the Agrarian Development of Argentina, 1650–1767 (Albany: SUNY Press, 1983), p. 85.Google Scholar
7 Assadourian, Carlos Sempat, “Potosí y el crecimiento económico de Córdoba en los siglos xvi y xvii,” in Homenaje al Doctor Ceferino Garzón Maceda (Córdoba: Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, 1973), pp. 172–73Google Scholar; Maceda, Garzón, Economía del Tucumán, pp. 7,Google Scholar 50–51.
8 Mörner, Magnus, The Political and Economic Activities of the Jesuits in the La Plata Region. The Hapsburg Era (Stockholm: Library and Institute of Ibero-American Studies, 1953), pp. 49–50 Google Scholar; Assadourian, Sempat, “Potosí y el crecimiento económico,” p. 174 Google Scholar; Mayo, Carlos, “Los pobleros del Tucumán colonial. Contribución al estudio de los mayordomos y administradores de encomienda en América,” Revista de Historia de América, 85 (enero-junio 1978), 43–55.Google Scholar
9 Concolorcovo, , El Lazarillo. A Guide for Inexperienced Travelers Between Buenos Aires and Lima, trans. Kline, Walter D. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1965), p. 85.Google Scholar
10 Cushner, , Jesuit Ranches, p. 103.Google Scholar
11 Seri, Jorge F., Historia de los Italianos en la Argentina (Buenos Aires: Editora Italo Argentina, 1940), pp. 386–88.Google Scholar
12 Assadourian, Carlos Sempat, “El sector exportador de una economía regional del interior argentino. Córdoba, 1800–1860,” Nova Americana, 1 (1978), 79–83.Google Scholar Sempat Assadourian argues that contemporary critiques of female indebtedness failed to distinguish between the costs incurred in capitalist manufacturing and the ability of women and children to create goods from raw materials available in a precapitalist family economy.
13 Barrionuevo, Nora de V., Córdoba, María C. and Dironi, Irma Julio, “Contribución para el estudio de las relaciones comerciales entre Catamarca y Córdoba entre 1810 a 1814,” Academia Nacional de Historia Primer Congreso de Historia Argentina y Regional (Buenos Aires: Academia Nacional de Historia, 1973), p. 216.Google Scholar
14 Converso, Félix, Belaunde, Jorge Grassi and Solveira, Beatriz, “Contribución al estudio del comercio entre Catamarca y Córdoba 1815–1831,” Academia Nacional de Historia Primer Congreso de Historia Argentina y Regional, p. 226 Google Scholar; Zolla, Luis Eugenio, “Catamarca, economía y relaciones comerciales (1838–1852), Academia Nacional de Historia Primer Congreso de Historia Argentina y Regional, p. 240.Google Scholar The 1835 tariff attempted to protect a series of domestic industries including those associated with cotton and wool. See Nicolau, Juan Carlos, Industria argentina y aduana 1835–1854 (Buenos Aires: Editorial Devenir, 1975), pp. 31–42.Google Scholar
15 Assadourian, Sempat, “El sector exportador de una economía regional del interior argentino. Córdoba, 1800–1860,” pp. 83–86.Google Scholar
16 Ibid.; Guy, Donna J., “Women, Peonage and Industrialization: Argentina, 1810–1914,” Latin American Research Review, 16:3 (1981), 73.Google Scholar
17 Street, James H., The New Revolution in the Cotton Economy. Mechanization and its Consequences (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1957), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
18 Ibid., p. 5.
19 Oviedo, Sánchez, El algodón. Factor importante en la historia de Catamarca, pp. 32–35.Google Scholar
20 Randall, J.G. and Donald, David H., The Civil War and Reconstruction (2nd ed.; Boston: D.C. Heath, 1961), pp. 36,Google Scholar 503.
21 E. Hammond to T. Hutchinson, October 12, 1861, Great Britain, Public Records Office [hereafter referred to as PRO], F06/242/214.
22 T. Hutchinson, Despatch No. 4, May 6, 1862, PRO, F06/242/177–186.
23 R.B. Hughes to Consul Hutchinson, July 10, 1862, PRO, F06/242/199; Consul Hutchinson, Despatch No. 10, July 16, 1862, PRO, F06/242/196–198.
24 Hutchinson, Report of Trip, Despatch No. 5, March 18, 1863, PRO, F06/247/216–245.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.; Hutchinson, Thomas J., Buenos Ayres and Argentine Gleanings: With Extracts From a Diary of Salado Exploration in 1862 and 1863 (London: Edward Stanford, 1865), appendix VII, p. 315.Google Scholar
27 Republic, Argentine Department of Agriculture, Cotton Cultivation (Buenos Aires, 1904), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
28 Hutchinson, Thomas J., Buenos Aires y otras provincias argentinas, trans. Varela, Luis V. (Buenos Aires: Editorial Huarpe, 1945), p. 302.Google Scholar
29 Hutchinson, Thomas, “On the Prospects of Cotton Cultivation in the Argentine Republic,” March 12, 1863,Google Scholar PRO, FO6/247/230–231.
30 The Times (London), November 9, 1863, 7.
31 Ibid.
32 Frank Parish, Consular Despatch No. 17, Buenos Aires, June 26, 1863, PRO, F06/247/94. Parish’s observations did not appear in the British press until December 1864. See Brazil and River Plate Mail and South American Journal, December 23, 1864, 85.
33 Hutchinson, Despatch No. 13, April 11, 1864, including enclosure from Mr. Henry Hall, Bella Vista, Comentes, PRO, F06/252/132–133.
34 Hutchinson, Thomas J., The Paraná; with Incidents of the Paraguayan War and South American Recollections from 1861–1868 (London: Edward Stanford, 1868), pp. 233–34.Google Scholar
35 Ibid., pp. 237–38.
36 Brazil and River Plate Mail, February 8, 1865, 56–67. See this journal from 1865 to 1867 for reports by British Consular officials throughout South America and Mexico on the cotton situation, as well as general reports on the British cotton supply.
37 U.S. National Archives [hereafter referred to as NA], Microcopy M/70, Roll 11, Despatches from United States Consuls in Buenos Aires, Vol. 10, H.R. Helper to Secretary of State Seward, Despatch No. 85, October 15, 1864, pp. 12–13.
38 Michael, G. and Mulhall, Edward T., Handbook of the River Plate; Comprising Buenos Ayres, the Upper Provinces, Banda Oriental, and Paraguay (Buenos Aires: Standard Printing Office, 1869), 1, pp. 29,Google Scholar 41, 48, 50; Michael, G. and Mulhall, Edward T., Handbook of the River Plate; Comprising Buenos Aires, the Provinces of the Argentine Republic, and the Republics of Uruguay and Paraguay (London: Edward Stanford, 1865), pp. 53–54 Google Scholar; Napp, Richard, The Argentine Republic (Buenos Aires: Sociedad Anónima, 1876), p. 273.Google Scholar
39 Argentine Republic, Superintendente del Censo, Primer Censo de la República Argentina (Buenos Aires, 1872), pp. 642–48.Google Scholar
40 Guy, , “Women, Peonage and Industrialization,” p. 66.Google Scholar
41 Chiaramonte, José Carlos, Nacionalismo y liberalismo económicos en Argentina 1860–1880 (Buenos Aires: Solar/Hatchette, 1971), p. 73.Google Scholar
42 Baker, Consul E. Buenos Aires, U.S. House of Representatives, Miscellaneous Documents, 1889–1930 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1890(?)), 4, p. 36.Google Scholar These figures did not include cotton thread imports which, in 1887, for example, came to almost $450,000. Miscellaneous Documents, 1889–1930, p. 38.
43 Hutchinson, , The Paraná; With Incidents of the Paraguayan War, p. 235.Google Scholar
44 de Blacha, Noemí Girbal, Historia de la agricultura argentina a fines del siglo xix (1890–1900) (Buenos Aires: Fundación para la Educación, la Ciencia, y la Cultura, 1982), pp. 12–14.Google Scholar
45 El Chaco, 1940, 80.
46 Pulido, José García, El Chaco actual (Resistencia, n.d., n.p.), p. 44.Google Scholar
47 Miranda, Guido, Tres ciclos chaqueños. (Crónica histórica regional) (Resistencia: Norte Argentino, 1945), pp. 230–37.Google Scholar
48 República Argentina, Ministerio de Agricultura, Junta Nacional de Algodón La producción de algodón en la República Argentina y en otros países (Buenos Aires: Guillermo Kraft, Ltd., 1935), p. 8.
49 de Blacha, Girbal, Historia de la agricultura argentina, pp. 18–22 Google Scholar; Cotton Cultivation, passim.
50 República Argentina, Ministerio de Agricultura, Memoria, 1904–5, p. 101; Dorfman, Adolfo, Historia de la industria argentina (Buenos Aires; Solar/Hachette, 1970), p. 39.Google Scholar
51 República Argentina, Ministerio de Agricultura, Boletín del Ministerio de Agricultura, 1:2 (abril 1904), 230–31.
52 South American Journal, July 30, 1904, 116; December 24, 1904, 684; October 15, 1904, 402. El Monitor de las Sociedades Anónimas, 3 (1906), 62.
53 Pérez, Fidel Maciel, Investigación algodonera en los territorios del Chaco, Formosa y Misiones (1904), p. 16.Google Scholar
54 Pérez, , Investigación algodonera, p. 18.Google Scholar
55 Ibid., pp. 20–21.
56 Ibid., pp. 33–36.
57 República Argentina, Anales del Ministerio de Agricultura, Sección de Comercio, Industrias y Economía, Informes sobre la creación de colonias nacionales algodoneras, presentado por Dr.Massé, Juan Bialet (Buenos Aires: Talleres de Publicaciones de la Oficina Meterológica, 1906), pp. 22–23.Google Scholar
58 República Argentina, Ministerio de Agricultura, Memoria, 1913, p. 76.
59 U.S. Consul Robert T. Crane to Secretary of State, June 20, 1912, NA, Microfilm Series 514, Roll 294, RC59 835.52/8.
60 Despatch No. 255, American Consulate-General, R.W. Bartelman to Secretary of State, March 28, 1910, NA M514/32; Review of the River Plate, Sept. 8, 1911, p. 5; República Argentina, Congreso Nacional, Cámara de Diputados, Diario de Sesiones (1911), II, pp. 280–86; The claim was based upon a report made by Attwell, Juan S. Inspector of Lands and Colonies, and printed in the Boletín del Ministerio de Agricultura, 13:6 (junio 1911), 295.Google Scholar