Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:13:58.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Works and Local Elites: The Politics of Taxation in Tlaxcala, 1780-1810*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

James D. Riley
James D. Riley*
Affiliation:
The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the winter of 1791-1792, meetings were being held in all of the principal towns of the Mexican province of Tlaxcala. Decisions had been reached that something had to be done about the recurring flooding of the Zahuapa river in central Tlaxcala and, independently, about the lack of an adequate water supply for the southeastern provincial town of Huamantla. As a result of these meetings, two independent projects began both of which were locally conceived and, more importantly, locally funded. In a burst of civic pride groups of Spanish vecinos (landowners and merchants who claimed Tlaxcala as their home) and Indian communities collaborated in constructing and financing these improvements. The work on the Zahuapa lasted until 1802, and the work to supply water in Huamantla was ongoing in 1810 when the Hidalgo revolt interrupted it. What is interesting about these decisions is not the success of the projects themselves—the first failed badly and the second was foundering when aborted—but rather what they highlight about the way Spanish and Indian leadership in local communities interacted politically in the late Bourbon period, both with each other and with Bourbon officialdom.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , January 2002 , pp. 355 - 393
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to express my appreciation to the anonymous referees of this journal for their candid and constructive criticisms of this essay. I found their comments most helpful in my own reflections on changes that needed to be made.

References

1 For the most recent examples emphasizing eighteenth-century developments, see the work of Haskett, Robert, Indigenous Rulers: An Ethnohistory of Town Government in Colonial Cuernavaca (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1991),Google Scholar and Wood, Stephanie, “Corporate Adjustments in Colonial Mexican Indian Towns: Toluca Region, 1550–1810” (Ph.D. diss., University of California at Los Angeles, 1984).Google Scholar The work of Gibson, Charles, The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico, 1519–1810 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964)Google Scholar is still fundamental, but it should be read in conjunction with James Lockhart’s revisionist study, The Nahuas After the Conquest (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992). Summarizing the vast literature on indigenous culture is daunting, but a vital work concerning the eighteenth century, which concentrates more on political culture than institutions, is Stern, Steve, The Secret History of Gender (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1995).Google Scholar Although it has appeared too recently for me to absorb into this paper, Young’s, Eric Van, The Other Rebellion: Popular Violence, Ideology, and the Mexican Struggle for Independence, 1810–1821 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001)Google Scholar should likewise be consulted because of his interest in understanding the political culture which underlay popular participation.

2 The most important works on government all reflect Southern Hemisphere issues. The standard work on cabildos is still Moore, John Preston, The Cabildo in Peru under the Bourbons (Durham: Duke University Press, 1966).Google Scholar Lynch, John, Spanish Colonial Administration, 1782–1810: The Intendant System in the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata (London: The Athlone Press, 1958),Google Scholar and Fisher, John R., Government and Society in Colonial Peru: The Intendant System, 1784–1814 (London: The Athlone Press, 1970)Google Scholar have also formed our views through their analysis of the Intendant’s relationship to the cabildos. There are no similar works on the cabildo of Mexico City but there are studies of municipal activity in two provincial cities, Puebla and Zacatecas. Liehr, Reinhard, Ayuntamiento y oligarquía en Puebla, 1787–1810, 2 vols. (Mexico: SepSetentas, 1976),Google Scholar and Garner, Richard L., “Zacatecas, 1750–1821: The Study of a Late Colonial City,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1970).Google Scholar Rural administration has been practically untouched. The most important work on local political administration other than a cabildo, is the collection of essays in El gobierno provincial en la Nueva España, 1570–1787, edited by Woodrow Borah (Mexico: UNAM, Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, 1985). The only institution with major Creole participation that has received more than cursory treatment is the Catholic Church. Taylor’s, William, Magistrates of the Sacred: Priests and Parishioners in Eighteenth-Century Mexico (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996)Google Scholar is essential. Although not intended to be an examination of political culture, his sections on priests (pp. 77–236) and on the politics of parish life (pp. 345–447) are particularly important in the context of this paper. See also the more rudimentary treatment of these issues in Brading, David, Church and State in Bourbon Mexico: The Diocese of Michoacán, 1749–1810 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 The literature on rural life is too vast to adequately summarize and the reader is encouraged to consult Van Young, Eric, “Mexican Rural History since Chevalier: The Historiography of the Colonial Hacienda,” Latin American Research Review 18 (1983), pp. 5–61,Google Scholar as well as his recent book, The Other Rebellion. Sonja Lipsett-Rivera has provided a very interesting reconstruction of the ecology of conflicts in To Defend Our Water with the Blood of Our Veins: The Struggle for Resources in Colonial Puebla (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1999). The violence of eighteenth-century rural life is emphasized in much of the literature because of the revolutions for Independence and the enduring problems of agrarian unrest. See Tutino, John, From Insurrection to Revolution in Mexico: Social Bases of Agrarian Violence, 1750–1940 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986).Google Scholar

4 The only exception to this generalization is the brief comment made by Hamnett, Brian in Roots of Insurgency: Mexican regions, 1750–1824 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Regrettably, he goes no further than to remark: “We should not conclude from the evidence of disputes that a constant tension between employers or administrators and day labourers or resident workers characterised rural life. On the contrary, evidence also exists—more by the lack of it than by its abundance—of harmonious relationships among the multifarious groups living and working together in the locality.”

5 As a starting point to access the pertinent literature, one should consult Young, Eric Van, “Recent Anglophone Scholarship on Mexico and Central America in the Age of Revolution,” HAHR 65:4 (November 1985), pp. 725–743.Google Scholar The best of the works on institutions and Imperial designs include Christon Archer, The Army in Bourbon Mexico, 1760–1810 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1977); Taylor, , Magistrates of the Sacred, and Mark Burkholder and D.S. Chandler, From Impotence to Authority: The Crown and the American Audiencias, 1689–1808 (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1977).Google Scholar Linda Arnold has provided an excellent study of the central administrative and judicial bureaucracy, Bureaucracy and Bureaucrats in Mexico City, 1742–1835 (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1988). There are a few exceptions to the stated lack of research on Bourbon bureaucrats in operation. The most important are Borah’s, Woodrow study of Indian courts, Justice by Insurance: The General Indian Court of Colonial Mexico and the Legal Aides of the Half-Real (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983)Google Scholar; and William Taylor’s, Magistrates of the Sacred. For Creole and popular responses to Bourbon policy, Young, Eric Van, The Other Rebellion, and David Brading, The First America: The Spanish Monarchy, Creole Patriots, and the Liberal State, 1492–1860 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991)Google Scholar are fundamental. It is ironic that while the new historiography of the revolutions for Independence have emphasized the upset caused by Bourbon policies, there are few studies of the Intendants or the subdelegates who enforced those policies.

6 The only published study of late colonial projects is Rees, Peter, Transportes y comercio entre México y Veracruz, 1519–1910 (Mexico: SepSetentas, 1976)Google Scholar which deals with late colonial road building. Most of the literature on public works in Mexico focuses on the Desague projects of the seventeenth century. See particularly Boyer, Richard, La gran inundación. Vida y sociedad en la ciudad de México (1629–1638) (Mexico: SepSetentas, 1975);Google Scholar and Hoberman, Louisa, “Technological Change in a Traditional Society: The Case of the Desague in Colonial Mexico,” Technology and Culture 21:1 (Jan 1980), pp. 386–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The only studies of local public works projects are Webre, Stephen, “Water and Society in a Spanish American City: Santiago de Guatemala, 1555–1773,” HAHR 70:1 (February 1990), pp. 57–84,Google Scholar and Brockington, Lolita Gutiérrez, “La dinámica de la historia regional: el caso de Mizque (Cochambamba) y ‘la Puente de 1630,’” Historia y Cultura, Lima 22 (1993), pp. 75–104.Google Scholar

7 For public works projects see Lynch, John, Spanish Colonial Administration, pp. 154–162.Google Scholar For the revitalization project see his chapter on cabildos, pp. 201–236.

8 Moore, John Preston, The Cabildo in Peru under the Bourbons, pp. 155–61;Google Scholar Fisher, John, Government and Society in Colonial Peru, pp. 168–173.Google Scholar Brown, Kendall, Bourbons and Brandy: Imperial Reform in Eighteenth-Century Arequipa (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1986), pp. 151ff.Google Scholar

9 Government and Society in Colonial Lima, p. 186. Lynch takes a slightly different view and emphasizes the cooperation of the cabildos with the work of the intendants until the late 1790s. On the other hand, Archbishop-Viceroy Caballero y Góngora of New Granada in the early 1780s also considered the cabildo of Bogota an “obstacle to good government.” McFarlane, Anthony, Colombia Before Independence: Economy, Society, and Politics Under Bourbon Rule (Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 See Moore’s comments on the cabildo of Lima, pp. 82-84. For similar comments regarding the ayuntamiento of Mexico City, see Cooper, Donald B., Epidemic Disease in Mexico City 1761–1813 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1965).Google Scholar

11 See Liehr, , Ayuntamiento y Oligarquía, 2, pp. 97–130 Google Scholar for the general examination of Flon’s relationship with the ayuntamiento of Puebla. See pp. 119–130 for the particulars of his public works projects. It should be noted that Flon’s relationships with even high-level bureaucrats were adversarial. Deeply contemptuous of the practices of customary government, he repeatedly clashed with Real Hacienda over the collection of revenues and earned the life-long enmity of Francisco Javier de Gamboa, the “regente” of the Audiencia. Consequently, according to Liehr he received little cooperation from viceregal authorities for his plans in Puebla. (Ibid., II, 115).

12 Flon was contemptuous of both Creole and Indian traditions and institutions. He rather cynically supported petitions of sujetos for separation from their cabeceras in Guerrero arguing that it made them easier to control when they rioted. Guardino, Peter, Peasants, Politics and the Formation of Mexico’s National State: Guerrero, 1800–1857 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996), p. 28.Google Scholar He also had problems with the Tlaxcalan cabildo, reacting angrily when the cabildo refused to accept the inclusion of the province as a subdelegación of the intendancy of Puebla. Brian Hamnett repeats the Intendant’s declarations about his opponents and writes that the cabildo of Tlaxcala, was a “closed corporation, corrupt and unreformed” which joined with the governor and the large hacendados of the region against the Intendant’s efforts on behalf of the poor Indians of the province. “Obstáculos a la política agraria del despotismo illustrado,” Historia mexicana 20:1 (July 1970), p. 62. For an alternative view of this dispute, see Baracs, Andrea Martínez, “Notas sobre el gobierno indio de Tlaxcala durante el siglo XVIII,” in Historia y sociedad en Tlaxcala: memorias del Tercer simposio internacional de Investigaciones Socio-Históricas sobre Tlaxcala, October 1987 (Mexico: Universidad Iberoamericana, 1990), pp. 43–44.Google Scholar

13 The Conde de Revillagigedo reflected the same patterns in his program to improve Mexico City. Without consulting the local elite, or involving the ayuntamiento, he determined what would be done, how it would be carried out, and what taxes would be imposed to pay for it. For specific reference to his public works, consult Harkins, Ann M., “Municipal Government in Mexico City, 1789–1794: A Study of the Public Works during the Viceregal Administration of the Second Count of Revilla Gigedo” (M.A. Thesis, The Catholic University of America, 1977).Google Scholar

14 Recent scholars have raised considerable questions regarding the general tone of the literature, which emphasizes the passivity and lack of a vision of the nation among provincial populations in the early republic. See, in particular, Guardino, Peter F., Peasants, and also Florencia Mallon, Peasant and Nation: The Making of Postcolonial Mexico and Peru (Berkeley: University of California press, 1995).Google Scholar

15 Borah, Woodrow, “El desarrollo de las provincias coloniales,” in Borah, , et. al., Gobierno Provincial, p. 33.Google Scholar The governors of Veracruz and Acapulco were the other two. See also Gibson, Charles, Tlaxcala in the Sixteenth Century, (Stanford, 1952).Google Scholar The full title in Spanish documents for Tlaxcala was always given as “el gobernador político y teniente del capitan general para este provincia.” During the seventeenth and eighteenth century, Tlaxcala had several Spanish governors who also served as Alcalde Mayor of Puebla, two who became oidores after their term of office, and at least three who carried the title General indicating they were the leaders of the Pueblan militia. The governors after 1776 were all colonels of the regular Spanish army. These details are culled from documents in the Archivo General del Estado de Tlaxcala. This collection contains what was the local administrative archive for Tlaxcala. I consulted these documents using microfilm prepared by the Centro de Documentación Histórico de Mexico of the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, and found at the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. The originals continue to reside in Tlaxcala but during the 1980s and 1990s have been recatalogued and renumbered. I have not had the opportunity to do a concordance between the numbers given in the microfilm copy and the current system, thus the numbers refer to the microfilm only (hereafter cited as AGT).

16 A scan of the 82 names of electors in 1726 discloses individuals who were retail merchants including bakers and grocers, wholesale merchants who acted as agents for Pueblan houses, as well as local wholesalers, in addition to landowners from all parts of the province and holding properties of varying sizes and uses. See AGT, #273. For workings of the Junta in 1617 see AGT, #58, and and for 1768 to 1785, AGT, #421. For 1789 to. 1791, see AGT, #bis150. This latter assembly of 130 men formally was called together to consider “the outstanding business of the province.” The farm of the alcabala ceased in 1775.

17 AGT, #421 includes references to regular elections after the farm of the alcabala was abolished in 1775. This strongly suggests that the function of the group had become more formal. AGT, #bis50 describes the junta for 1789 and the use of the diputados to advise the governor on the plans to be discussed later. There are other references, as well, to the use of the diputados for business other than the alcabala. It would be a mistake, though, to infer from this that the Junta for the Alcabala had always had this consultative role. In 1748, the governor used a similar but distinct mechanism for consultation. He called special meetings in the six districts of the province to elect deputies to meet in the City to discuss an agricultural crisis. These diputados (which included the two men who served as supervisors of the Alcabala) assisted him in resolving that crisis. See AGT, #336.

18 An interesting insight into the mind of this Indian elite is provided by Zapata y Mendoza, Juan Buenaventura, Historia cronológica de la noble ciudad de Tlaxcala, transcribed and edited by García, Luis Reyes and Baracs, Andrea Martínez (Mexico: Universidad Autónoma de Tlaxcala, 1995).Google Scholar Buenaventura Zapata transcribed the work of previous chroniclers and with a subsequent chronicler, Br. Manuel de los Santos y Salazar, maintained a record of the significant occurrences in the province from the 1650s until 1703. His notes reflect a strong pride of place and lament a decline of patriotism among the Indian population. Woodrow Borah indicates that Tlaxcala had very active representatives in Madrid in the late seventeenth century and secured a number of cédulas that strengthened the legal rights of all Indians in New Spain. One cédula that he cites as particularly important confirmed the right of Indians freely to “pursue all matters proper in Law, and at all proper times, without any requirement of bond of any kind…” Justice by Insurance, pp. 302–304.

19 Baracs, Andrea Martínez, “Notas sobre el gobierno indio,” pp. 43–44.Google Scholar The formal lawsuit lasted from 1787 until 1793 when the Council of the Indies decided in favor of Tlaxcala. Flon, in particular, was upset by this defeat.

20 For the general parameters of the crisis consult Riley, James, “Landlords, Laborers and Royal Government: The Administration of Labor in Tlaxcala, 1680–1750” in Frost, Elsa, et. al, El trabajo y los trabajadores en la historia de Mexico, (Mexico, 1979), pp. 221–241.Google Scholar

21 Landowners blamed migration from the province for their economic woes. See particularly Riley, , “Landlords, Laborers,” p. 224 Google Scholar for the development of this theme. The most complete picture of demography is given in Trautmann, Wolfgang, Las transformaciones en el paisaje cultural de Tlaxcala durante la epoca colonial, (Weisbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1981), pp. 76–79, 95–96.Google Scholar Gibson, Charles, Tlaxcala, estimates a population of 200,000 at the time of conquest (p. 141).Google Scholar There are no indications in any records about the low point reached at the end of the sixteenth century, or any increase in population in the seventeenth century. The figure of 50,000 for the late seventeenth century is derived from Gerhard, Peter, “Un censo de la Diócesis de Puebla en 1681” Historia Mexicana 30:4 (April-June 1981), pp. 534–35.Google Scholar In 1793, according to Archivo General de la Nación, México (hereafter cited as AGN), Historia, Tomo 523, exp. 1, the Indian population was approximately 42,000. It should be noted, however, that other sources give a slightly different picture of population, and that manuscript sources such as tribute records indicate wild and improbable fluctuations. These fluctuations suggest that one must take into account the phenomenon of temporary migration, and the changing definition of Indian in the late colonial period, before concluding that there was a demographic disaster.

22 In 1681, there were approximately 12,600 “Gente de Razón” in provincial parishes (See Gerhard, , “un censo”); in 1791,Google Scholar there were only 14,379 counted in the militia census taken in that year, AGN, Padrones, Volume 22.

23 Consult AGT, #bis41 and AGT, #bis82 for the summary reports of revenue of the Aduana of Tlaxcala, 1777–1794.

24 The most important estate owned by a vecino of the province was the hacienda de los Jardines. It was passed down through the Yañez Remuzgo de Vera family from the 1620s until sold in a bankruptcy action at the beginning of the nineteenth century. See AGN, Civil, Tomo 41, exp. 4 for this litigation. The almost equally spectacular failure of the Muñoz de Cote family (first mentioned in the 1640s) in the 1790s is catalogued in AGN, Tierras, Legajo 1375, exp. 1. Even churchmen were not immune. The most valuable property in the province was the Hacienda of San Mateo Piedrasnegras which belonged to the Bethlemite Order of Puebla. It had to be sold for debts in 1791. This story is told in AGN, Tierras, Legajo 1891, exp. 1.

25 AGN, padrones, volume 22.

26 See AGN, Padrones, volume 48 for Huamantla. For 1777, see Trautmann, p. 96.

27 The chronicles suggest that the site was chosen by the Spanish for political purposes: they wished to exhibit power by showing their “contempt” for the Indians who had built their towns in powerful hilltop sites for defensive reasons. de Angulo, Mercedes Meade, “Fundación de la ciudad de Tlaxcala,” in Historia y sociedad en Tlaxcala (Tlaxcala: Gobierno del Estado de Tlaxcala, 1986), p. 43.Google Scholar

28 Petition of the cabildo of Tlaxcala to Viceroy Bernardo de Galvez, July 30, 1785, AGT, #bis37, fojas 1–10. For the figure for 1701, see AGN, Tierras, Legajo 1154, exp. 2.

29 AGT, #bis81, “Representacon de Don Joseph Rodríguez Bayon sobre las obras del Rio Zahuapa, 1793.” For the first mention of this project in 1701, see AGN, Tierras, Legajo 1154, exp. 2. See also the full description of it in AGT, #bis37.

30 Petition of Joseph Rafael de Molina to Viceroy Marques de Croix, n.d. 1766, AGT, miscellany, “Sobre la Obra del Rio, 1766.” See also AGT, #426 which provides the stage setting. Immediately upon his arrival in May 1761 López began complaining about the condition of the Casas Reales where he and his family were expected to live. He demanded that they be totally rebuilt but when the cabildo declined, claiming lack of funds, he grudgingly let the matter go.

31 Trautmann, p. 25. Trautmann notes that the Indians claimed that the viceroy Mendoza gave a license to the cacique Gregorio Xicotencatl de Aquino, a member of the house of the rulers of Tizatlan, in 1530, and obtained a royal cédula confirming the grant in 1534. The first document was obviously a forgery and the latter has never been located, so the actual date of settlement is uncertain.

32 AGN, Civil, tomo 820, exp. 6.

33 AGT, #bisl50, “Autos relativos a la conducción del agua para Huamantla y necesidades que pasaron por falta de ella, 1804,” f. 1.

34 For personal data and composition of his household see AGN, Padrones, Vol. 22. He rented the hacienda of San Miguel Mimiahuapam, which was northwest of the city in the district of San Agustin Tlaxco. This was a major estate in the district and its possession indicates that Lissa was engaged in commerce with Puebla in “productos de la tierra.”

35 See the complaints found in AGT, #bis56 and AGT, #bis58 for examples of the charges brought against him. It should be noted that after inquiry, all accusations were dismissed.

36 AGT, #bis24, f. 1 .” Autos en solicitud de una orden para que los vecinos a los Rios Atoyac y Zahuapan aborden la caja para evitar las anegaciones, 1782.” Portal was one of the most prominent landowners in Tlaxcala and important in Puebla. He inherited Santa Ana from his father, Pedro Pablo del Portal, who owned it in the 1730s. His brother, Francisco Teodoro, owned the hacienda of Santa Elena Atoyac and was a diputado of the Junta in 1789 while he was also a Captain of Dragoons in Puebla. Both men resided on their estates in Nativitas, and, despite their Pueblan connections, considered themselves vecinos of the province. AGN, Padrones, vol. 22.

37 AGT, #bis24, f. 8.

38 Ibid., ff. 1–3.

39 Letter of the Bishop of Puebla to Viceroy Matias de Gálvez, January 15, 1784. AGT, #bis37, f. 14-15. Tlaxcala was not alone in receiving promises of gifts. In a later letter to the viceroy of March 6, 1784 (f. 21) he declared that he had also agreed to give Atlixco a water supply, to help with the construction of a bridge in Cholula and with the construction of a hospital for the poor in Puebla. López Gonzalo was the model of a Bourbon cleric seeking promotion. William Taylor indicates that promotion of building projects was an important element in the resume of a pastor seeking advancement, and we can assume that the same tactic could be used by bishops. Magistrates of the Sacred (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996), p. 103. In 1787, López was awarded the bishopric of Tortosa in Spain, (letter to the regent Villaurrutia, March 8, 1787, f. 22).

40 Report of Captain Luis de Villalba to the Bishop of Puebla, January 23, 1784, AGT, #bis37, ff. 28–33. See also the Report of Captain Juan Camargo y Caballergo to the Viceroy, April 13, 1793, Ibid., ff. 234–242.

41 All of the memoranda and the duplicate letters are found in Ibid., ff 13–22.

42 See his response to an opinion of the fiscal of the audiencia, March 24, 1791. Ibid., f. 26.

43 Petition of Joseph Rafael de Molina to the Viceroy, n.d., 1766, AGT, miscellany, “Sobre la obra del rio, 1766.”

44 Francisco Teodoro del Portal was frequently one of the deputies during the 1780s and 1790s.

45 Iñíquez de Vetolaza was frequently delegated by Lissa to be the Lieutenant General of the province, which meant that he governed in Lissa’s absences. He was also elected by the notables to be the treasurer of the project and continued in that capacity at least until 1796.

46 Letter to the Viceroy, July 30, 1785, AGT, #bis37.

47 Letter to the viceroy, September 3, 1790, Ibid. The fiscal in his report was not impressed by what he described as their “lamentation.” He dismissed their complaints with the off-handed comment that if they were so upset, why didn’t they complain earlier?

48 See the cabildo’s report of work completed, August 29, 1793, AGT, #bis84, f. 21.

49 Bishop Victoriano López Gonzalo to Viceroy Gálvez, January 15, 1784, AGT, #bis37, ff. 14–15.

50 Viceroy Conde de Gálvez to Bishop Victoriano López Gonzalo, April 6, 1784, Ibid., f. 18.

51 Letter of Bishop López to Regente Villaurrutia, March 8, 1787, Ibid., f. 22.

52 Of the approximately 23,000 pesos collected, only 1,800 pesos were returned to the merchant who had initiated the suit, Tomas Diaz Varela.

53 Letter of the cabildo to the viceroy, November 26, 1791, AGT, #bis37, f. 65.

54 Opinion of the Fiscal, September 28, 1791, Ibid., f. 45. Revillagigedo approved this and communicated it to the cabildo of Tlaxcala on October 12.

55 When the report was finally made in April 1795 to the Marques de Branciforte, it was incomplete and the Director General de Aduanas, Juan Navarro y Madrid, admitted that his office could not verify the amounts collected after 1785. Navarro suggested in 1795 that the figure arrived at by Lombard™, the collector of Aduanas for Tlaxcala, in 1792 be accepted because no other figure could be verified. AGT, #bis67.

56 In January 1792, he estimated that 21,059 pesos 6 reales remained to be refunded. See his report to the viceroy, AGT, #bis37, f. 73.

57 Report of Governor Lissa to the Viceroy, February 17, 1792, Ibid., ff. 86–87.

58 The Indian subsidy of the project was to amount to 1/6 of the total cost, or 7,500 pesos of the estimated cost of 45,000 pesos. Letter of the cabildo to the Viceroy, September 3, 1791 and fiscal’s response approved by the Viceroy October 12, 1791, AGT, #bis37, ff. 42, 52-53. They chose to pay their portion via reduced wages as indicated. This amounted ideally to 2,500 pesos a year. If the wage rates are extended for the 27 weeks per year during which the work was done, it would mean a total Indian contribution of approximately 3,300 pesos. No accounting actually indicates the precise amount.

59 Plan of projected expenses submitted by Captain Luis de Villalba to Viceroy Revillagigedo, April 6, 1792, AGT, #bis37, f. 107.

60 See Report of the Aduana, 1793, AGT, #bis82.

61 For an example of the procedure, see “Expediente sobre la junta…para la obra del Rio por lo respectivo a esta ciudad…, 1792,” AGT, #bìs74.

62 Brown, Kendall, Bourbons and Brandy, pp. 108–110.Google Scholar

63 See his comments in a letter to the Viceroy, AGT, #bis74, f. 4; also his letter of October 16, 1792, AGT, #bis37, f. 220. One of the men with whom he was very upset was Licenciado Miguel de Santerbas who owned the hacienda of San Francisco Aculeo, one of the most valuable properties in private hands in Tlaxcala. Santerbas, whose brother was a Pueblan regidor, contributed only 15 pesos for San Francisco which lay on the Zahuapa and would directly benefit from the work being done. A number of other landowners in Nativitas who were residents of Puebla, likewise, contributed nothing to the project.

64 For 1792, see the accounts in AGT, #bis37, ff. 201–220. For 1793, consult AGT, #bis84. For comments regarding collections in 1794, see the Report of the Fiscal of the Audiencia, AGT, #bis112.

65 The complete account of the workers provided in 1792 is found in AGT, #bis37, ff. 201-208. For 1793, the work force provided by one of the four cabeceras of Tlaxcala—Tizatlan—is found in AGT, #bis84. This last document also indicates that the Indians took great pride in their contribution to the joint effort. See the formal report by the Cabildo of the work done, f. 21.

66 For the success, see AGT, #bis37 and #bis84. For the lack of progress, see the Report of Antonio de Santa Maria Inchauregui, April 28, 1802, AGT, #bisl25.

67 The viceroy continuously had to reissue the order that obstacles to the flow of water had to be removed from the river. See AGT, #bis83; AGT, #bisl01; AGT, #bisl20; AGT, #bisl25; and AGT, #bisl60. In April 1793, an inspection disclosed 30 separate impediments to the flow, scarcely a year after the work had begun. (AGT, #bis83).

68 Testimony of the receipt of the order of the governor by Don Joseph de Portal, April 18, 1795, AGT, #bisl01.

69 See the Report of the Fiscal Protector de Indios to the Viceroy, December 1, 1796, AGT, #bis112, ff. 2–3.

70 “Expediente formado en virtud de la superiod orden del virrey … Marques de Branciforte, sobre la importante obra del Rio de Zahuapa y aplicación que para el efecto hizo la Junta Superior de Real Hacienda de la cantidad de 23,089 pesos, 1797,” AGT, #bis112.

71 AGN, Civil, Tomo 820, exp. 6; AGT, #bisl50.

72 All of the Indian petitions on the matter use the same language in describing the need for action. See as an example, the petition of the officials and residents of the barrio of San Lucas, to Governor Baamonde, September 1804, AGT, #bisl50, f. Iff.

73 The amount of the tax is never specified. It is described in a lawyer’s opinion contained in the petition of the Indians of Barrio of San Lucas as “Los Pilones que dan en las tiendas en cada un medio de las ventas que hazen.…” Ibid., f. 3.

74 See Report of Rafael Fernández de Lara to Governor Baamonde, October 13,1804, AGT, #bis150, f. 15.

75 It was the means used by the cabildo of Tlaxcala to finance construction on the parish church of San Jose in 1807. The late date of this reference, however, and the prior opposition of royal officials suggests that it was not in general use prior to this time. See AGT, #bis 162, “Relativo a las cuentas de la obra material de la parroquia de esta ciudad, Tlaxcala, 1807.” One finds references in many places to derramas as temporary measures by Indian communities to finance emergency action. Robert Haskett suggests that they were usually head taxes levied as additions to the tribute. See Haskett, , Indigenous Rulers, p. 72.Google Scholar

76 AGT, #bis 150 March 1795.

77 Report of Rafael Fernández de Lara to Governor Manuel Baamonde, October 13, 1804, Ibid., f. 13ff.

78 See the various petitions of the Indian barrios, Ibid., ff. 8–11.

79 Petition of the Barrio of San Lucas, September 1804, Ibid.

80 It is suggested in later documents that there was a conflict between Fernández and another prominent local citizen, Don Rafael Rodríguez Polo, that could have played a role in the publicizing of the activity. See Fernández’ report, October 13, 1804, in Ibid., ff. 13–19. Rodríguez Polo had consulted a letrado in Puebla concerning the legality of the tax before the barrio of San Lucas complained to the governor. See the letrado’s opinion contained in the Petition of the Indians of the Barrio of San Lucas, to governor Baamonde, September 1804, Ibid., ff. 2–3.

81 Auto of Governor Manuel Baamonde, September 25, 1804, Ibid., f.7.

82 Petition of the Barrio of San Lucas, Ibid., f. 4.

83 Ibid., f. 13ff.

84 Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 1809, Ibid., f. 107ff.

85 See Muñoz’s comments in his auto of September 21,1809, AGT, #bis150, f. 158.

86 Three landowners actually contributed more in 1809 than in 1791. All were associated with families with long traditions in the local area. In addition, three other hacendados who had contributed nothing in 1791, contributed to this project.

87 Report of the Asesor, Lic. José de Urruiza to Governor Muñoz, April 6, 1810, AGT, #bisl50, f. 165.

88 Ibid.

89 Trautmann, p. 222.

90 Letter of Rafael Fernández de Lara to Governor José Muñoz, June 12, 1809, AGT, #bis150, f. 131.

91 For the ideas of José de Gálvez, see, in particular, Brading, David, First America, pp. 473–479.Google Scholar For Intendant Flon’s similar view of Creoles, see Liehr, , Ayuntamiento y Oligarquía, 2, 135, note 64.Google Scholar Flon wrote in a 1789 letter to Viceroy Revillagigedo, “I would dare to say that it is very difficult to find an upright man in the entire kingdom because deceit (dolo), venality, and dissolute behavior are general evils that infect every class of person.”

92 See AGT, #bisl50. The diputados, Francisco Teodoro del Portal, Ramon Joseph Gonzalez de Silva, and Joaquín Mariano de Huesca complained that some individuals were not appearing when they were called to a Junta General “Sin embargo de la obligación común que tenemos de ocurrir todos a tratar de asunto o negocio de provincia.” Manuel Razo of Huamantla refused to appear or to sign the citation acknowledging that he had received the command and the governor, Lissa, signed a warrant for his arrest on the criminal charge of “ultraje y desprecio de la Real Jurisdicción.” Razo attended.

93 Liehr, , Ayuntamiento y Oligarquía, 2, 112.Google Scholar

94 His Tlaxcalan background, other than his birth, is overlooked in all of the sources that describe his activities. Nettie Benson, Lee, The Provincial Deputation in Mexico (Austin: University of Texas, 1992), note 51, p. 161,Google Scholar provides a brief biographical sketch. For his activities between 1820 through 1823, see the accounts of these years in Benson, and Anna, Timothy, The Fall of Royal Government in Mexico City (Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1977).Google Scholar He served during this period as both a delegate to the provincial deputations from Mexico City and Tlaxcala, and was active in the efforts to make Tlaxcala a state in the debates over a republic in 1824. For this latter point see de Angulo, Mercedes Meade, “Un Plano de 1848 de Tlaxcala,” in Historia y Sociedad en Tlaxcala: Memorias del 4° y 5° internacionales de investigaciones socio-historicas sobre Tlaxcala, Octobre de 1988, Octubre de 1989 (México: Universidad Iberoamerican, 1991), p. 91.Google Scholar

95 One uncle, Cristóbal de Alcocer purchased the Hacienda of Concepción in San Felipe from the Jesuits in 1758, while another uncle, Vicente de Alcocer, bought the ex-Jesuit hacienda of Santos Reyes in Santa María Nativitas from the office of Temporalidades in 1777. See AGN, Tierras, Legajo 3390, exp. 1.

96 “Diligencias mandadas practicar contra José Mariano Guridi y Alcocer por adeudo a José Matamoros,” 1793, AGT, #bis78.

97 AGT, #bisl79. His estate—to be divided among four children—consisted of a house in the town of San Felipe and debts owed to him amounting to 2,732 pesos. These debts, his son discovered, could not be collected because of his father’s sloppy paperwork. José Miguel, by then pastor of the parish of Tacubaya in Mexico City, in 1807 declared that he had only been able to obtain repayment of 83 pesos. It is of note that one of his father’s good friends was Don José Bartolo del Portal, the man whose protest began the development of the Zahuapa project. Portal tried to help Dr. José Miguel collect the debts owed but failed.

98 David Garza describes him as one of the five Mexicans who played a major role in the debates of the Cortes over the constitution of 1812. This entire article is effectively about Guridi y Alcocer’s thought since he was the principal proponent for the Americanist positions in the published accounts of the debates. “Mexican Constitutional Expression in the Cortes of Cádiz,” in Mexico and the Spanish Cortes, 1810-1822. ed. Nettie Lee Benson (Austin: University of Texas, 1996), pp. 44–50. Brading, , The First America, pp. 574–575 Google Scholar mentions him only as the impassioned defender of Creole abilities, and for his statistical information regarding Creole appointments to high government positions.