“Our Pueblos, Fractions with No Central Unity”: Municipal Sovereignty in Central America, 1808-1821

Abstract

One of many revolutions that swept the Americas in the early nineteenth century was the establishment of new republics that were independent not only of European sovereignty but also of monarchy. This article uses the case study of Central America to suggest that, in at least some parts of Spanish America, this political revolution did not just transform vassals into citizens and colonies into nation-states; it also identified a need to shift from a classical European political philosophy based on municipal sovereignty — that of the pueblos — to a politics of national sovereignty — that of the pueblo. In Spanish America, the political revolution that occurred between 1808 and 1821 delayed elites’ realization that a choice between the two was required. This period of upheaval following the collapse of the Spanish monarchy witnessed the emergence of leaders who simultaneously deployed both national and municipal sovereignties and who implemented both neo-Scholastic and liberal policies. Therefore, the move from municipal to national sovereignty, I argue, reflects not a poor or failed transition from traditional to modern governance but a gradual realization that a reconstituted central authority was incompatible with a hybrid political system. In Central America, this challenge first emerged at the moment of independence.As one of Spain’s most loyal colonies during the Napoleonic period — where elites had pressed medals in honor of the captive Ferdinand VII (1808) and implemented the Constitution of 1812 with vigor (1812–14 and 1820 – 21) — we might expect the Kingdom of Guatemala to have avoided the internal strife common to Spanish American republics in independence, especially since its residents did not take up arms against Spain to secure it. Yet, when making the decision to follow Mexico’s 1821 declaration of independence with their own, dozens of city councils from Chiapas to Costa Rica diverged sharply over where to establish a new political center. The capital’s authorities tried to gauge public opinion by first calling for a constituent assembly and then initiating a referendum of the region’s municipalities. Municipal challenges to the consolidation of a single power center continued after independence, as municipal councils in small villages and provincial capitals insisted that state and national governments address their demands regarding local governance and political affiliation. These pretensions contributed to a cascade of civil wars that began over the question of annexation to Mexico (1821 – 23) and continued under the weak state of the Central American Federation (1824 – 39), which soon separated into five republics.1While Central America’s internal strife and political divisions are similar to those experienced by Mexico and many South American countries in the first half of the nineteenth century, the municipal character of its independence process was unique. Early on, local political analysts identified Central America as a place where divisiveness and instability were rooted in continued appeals to municipal sovereignty rather than in republican ideals.2 For example, Guatemalan cleric and politician Juan José Aycinena (1792 – 1865) observed that at independence, “our pueblos did not present the appearance of a kingdom ruled by a unitary government, but many fractions dislocated with no center of unity.”3 Aycinena’s vision of Central American political authority fragmented at the municipal level merits attention as a key to analyzing the region’s political instability — particularly early leaders’ difficulty in convincing breakaway regions to respect and maintain the and capitals had for of Spain’s in the on the for Spanish America’s difficulty in but only have the of the city in the independence Early political and particularly by to the to at divisions between in the new or for and on political national the early century, have the Spanish of a for the and of This of who in the early that a in the political of 1808 but who the of monarchy. that the Spanish American revolution was a civil from the Napoleonic in the and the the of and independence and have that the of 1812 had political and that by independence, Spanish American countries the of to the the liberal with the by the of both in the political and of the — particularly the of the and of the city during the 1808 – the attention from a new of political of politics and in Mexico and provincial which of a central state a only a — the — councils and have most especially of Central not to the place of the the new but to city and to between and national in to the of and the consolidation of new and have to the to its place as political in a moment of political some that the that of might have had on the after Yet, most of have the between Spanish or have the and of in and their or in villages and their local when study to municipal the of councils in that the of Spanish governance between 1808 and the of and the of a hybrid political in Central the one between 1808 and of traditional of the power of Spanish and the for demands to in the after 1812 many with municipal a in the municipal independence process of leaders on traditional of municipal sovereignty to to in in to the of a unitary decision to In the this political those who on municipal sovereignty to the power in 1821 failed to that the independent state on the of — the pueblos — of a of the for city and in the century, that the and of their were not only center for the and political but also the of and and The city was the of Spanish America, as it was in early modern to Spanish political the or citizens of a Spanish as by their or up a political or from which sovereignty and and political power from in a that to the the one this of the city as or was a from and political The of the – in this the as of a a a a or a The between city and sovereignty was when Spain new as the of annexation in the of and in the of the by to and American and their the first the the Kingdom of Guatemala was as a in most of its Spanish and with their many into their had for in the kingdom in the a and provincial and most on the and in kingdom Guatemala rather than on as Spanish Juan – that sovereignty of the pueblos was in their city and a political of and the Spanish their councils the political and of their and residents continued to in a municipal as a political in the or political Spanish political to the not only that sovereignty in — the — but also that it to – was of the that a sovereignty from a a in which political their sovereignty to the was and only in of a in the monarchy or of sovereignty to the did not this political for it the to against or by the but a of early modern Spanish political and it in the Spanish 1808 of Spain and the of its the as and the it to to the against the was in the Americas as it a and In municipal from the to the Spain the of municipal sovereignty to address the challenge of a up of and their of this the traditional of a political or but two as of and political over the of and Spain’s over to of the but a from — the was to in with municipal governments and to their the in the of a only to and their were and that were or in the center or on municipal that might up to and dozens of to the and of residents were into villages that were up to a single of — as the who had the — the and of a Spanish the of and the of a pueblos were political and the kingdom and were to city governments Spanish as and in Spanish America, the of a and as as the from the of the of the two pueblos was in the Kingdom of of the were were and the residents were of and was their into two of with only one Yet, this the and political of the two pueblos was by Spanish and continued to the city governments that the Spanish and over villages with or of the city as a in this in the early nineteenth century the of of by place of as as but municipal in the early nineteenth municipal authorities in the of the of municipal and on the Spanish city councils not on but on the to local a when Ferdinand the Spanish political in the of municipal sovereignty center in political on the and in the Americas to a local and a in the and of the American and revolutions and a of government, in Central America it was the Spanish and its the city that and was by Spanish authorities to to the or the of the region’s and the of the of a to sovereignty and to their political the the as of the Spanish the political of their in or that of key and as as those city councils that Spanish to a Spain in was not The of at least two capitals — Guatemala and — that their the to to their and In the of the Guatemala the with of in early to the to of the it was at a that a of on their the than a to the of the Central which the sovereignty and in the of and Ferdinand a might with the it its to independent the who in to for Ferdinand during the and of the to the In early the that it as a of Spanish sovereignty, that Ferdinand VII had in it of power when had the and that it sovereignty in The declaration of both to Spain and as rather than following The the the to the sovereignty of the pueblos five of the that the the of the and the of its sovereignty to a the decision had not by the — that the pueblos had not the the of the of the provincial also the of authority in in Guatemala the its of in the of the city it the that its of the was only to its from Spain and the of a central a city that was and of the Spanish the the not just to but to in the establishment of since and Spain and the to as by the to the The of both Guatemala and in the that as pueblos of sovereignty in and as continued to Spain and a in and not just in of of the of the sovereignty of the pueblos was a – that to Spain in the to a and had their small and and to where and not in a the in the authority in the The of the — the of the sovereignty in the — this might of authorities the of to Guatemala that the with the for to in as the not the after the of that of by of city The and the civil the the of the who to with municipal to their that loyal were and not only and political by sovereignty for their of Spain’s constituent the to did in — in and and in the most of the and of the of the the of a of José – on no we only to in of city that that Guatemala had no authority a political power in the of the new city and in the of “our Ferdinand a new and José and a new José only did the traditional city to Spanish it also the from in into the process of the new and then the for which of the of the we The of and that Ferdinand sovereignty to the also that, to the up with and to which a to to to in the with this to independence or to the power of local authorities that of a of by or by of arms the of sovereignty city by or from or the center and its to on their the residents of the Kingdom of Guatemala had new and that this the of that that it from with rather than with the political In in a to the of its and to the for the to the and civil and political that in some in this by European of the the a challenge to the of a monarchy in that in villages and where and residents their and as had just were by Spanish and city councils of the of from the the local of those councils that did not since who had that municipal was Guatemala the of that convincing José – to José Aycinena as the and to José as a Spain’s from to of its decision to to the from to Guatemala a kingdom with a honor for its — the to as — which it on the level as the the political to who in for both and or was no that the Spanish city councils of Central America the that sovereignty — or the to political — in of to the Spanish which in sovereignty to the as the Spanish rather than as a of for a single and for over the Central America’s city councils did not to the challenges and of the as a kingdom or as residents and did to their city the in as were not leaders in Spain that the councils of Spanish American and were the of political not a of sovereignty, when to in the of or to the – also this when the of as the to a to the Spanish for For the first Spanish as constituent parts of the and it was Spanish city councils that as the constituent the by the and the Spain’s in political and at the and not just level and also at Central American with this The Spanish and as in the of Spanish a and in the kingdom the to and then the by in the between and Central American their from which the Guatemala and José who had by the which was to the process Central America’s as the region’s political of was as it the provincial level of the political the political as the was a that with a that sovereignty In the century, many of Central America’s Spanish municipal had into and as the as those of and to a single the capitals and as and Therefore, the for to were the and that for the kingdom — one for five provincial capitals capitals of the and Costa one for kingdom Guatemala have one for of the Spanish and and the and the of that a vision of the political that did not with local of municipal This when we at the from the of to in Guatemala of a the kingdom was not a provincial and did not under its and Spanish were capitals of that had not to the new and the new for American in its independence in Guatemala did a single of of to in its only this the and suggest that the Spanish which political to that were also provincial did not with the of political on the sovereignties based on as and not just as provincial and Guatemala to up of the a to This not from the new Spanish but from the traditional political to Spanish the period between 1808 and Central American elites that Spanish on both of the as to political demands based on the that based on the of the sovereignty of the pueblos during a in the monarchy. and Spanish that villages were not pueblos in the for the of capitals in governments or or in the of the first as municipal or was the Spanish and their authorities had into a and of a of municipal that to the and residents of the challenge to municipal sovereignty in the of a on provincial and This when the its attention to a Constitution of the Spanish the first to the Spanish This by of and Spanish and sovereignty in the the of and into political and for in the of and residents of Spain and its the and civil of of European and American in have political as the to to city in provincial and to In the and political in the of the sovereignty in the the the that had the process of a central in the Yet, and their For the new political to the of rather than and a provincial and it also the city as the authority and political the political for Spanish city in the Americas was the of city politics and was the by municipal councils were by citizens in with at least one of This — which the by the rather than of its — against of in both Spain and Spanish America that only Spanish political in decision only villages have a and in the of of the new provincial and In national municipal and the political for a Spanish and were to with a of In this the Constitution of 1812 the of political with the city but the of city to it the between and Spanish America’s this had for municipal during the of the as of Costa the the the a Guatemala had that for provincial to by their constituent These José the of and the authority of the and that of the a vision of the Spanish as a political of might to the that sovereignty to a or rather than a Central America’s for a that political at the local their did not a or a municipal and their the of to and in to demands by of Central American who that for in municipal For example, as early as of and a city as for their municipal councils and the political this The leaders of the in and had into city and in early five with one for of its establishment of provincial the was by and the the political of the Kingdom of one for the kingdom one for and with the two provincial with the to between the and and the provincial of the — to the Central American the Kingdom of local authorities the and by the two and many were The Guatemalan and by and were of city and were might have as for political that municipal the of by their – and 1820 – and the of many in the municipal of the the political of the of and the when the provincial for it was for the to or as political center for the dozens of municipal that had under the for the were only half the new municipal had in the city and provincial on the establishment of and especially their establishment in and In and the the implemented new into and to in the traditional These new municipal a and in Guatemala municipal had than In and dozens of in from Guatemala to and in and and to up new municipal villages were particularly to and in 1820 the Guatemala the of one in the of the the to to the of its the 1820 Guatemalan and and to the establishment and of councils and the to to that the particularly its of and the of municipal authority at the of that of or the of the for the in in residents of and a their new to a after tried to the that their to in for example, in early and that with the in had the of to for not this and its and that to the new system. to where local from to In the the of to leaders who had with Spanish to the had from the new the of at least of the for the the provincial this that the had no for a to the not to at of to particularly when by In and authorities to with the since the its it. to and from a this to in and authorities both and from the new on their emerged in 1812 Guatemala from the of a single political for their for the that in the new Spanish to not just but also of were to for and to municipal in a that continued when Ferdinand VII the in with of authorities and Spanish of but political authorities and insisted on the of the new just as had for In and in authorities were to and for The that but both and the provincial as a of to municipal Central America’s and to in the new of the — and — into the also continued municipal for over in the and under the as have under the central that some power have to with in the Spanish the of the political a small of municipal residents both and the to new to a for in where and for The of the Spanish with Central American and the for the of the pueblos of and as as the of into the In to residents of Central American leaders a new not by or but by under the The was not elites were to to the provincial and and new for and did not of and by Guatemala identified over two in and of Central America, with political of as a or The making of the pueblos had the between Spanish city and or or had in and had to in the the first — the on the political of municipal — was the that sovereignty in the rather than in the or the making up the it local governments to their rather than or or provincial the were no in the political of the had authority than their provincial this in when between and a on who had authority to under the new system. to the continued to the of a with a of to its and of the to maintain that not have the to the by a and to as a by the from of and not The its from from with city of the and of their The new municipal councils political authority than their in the independence, of political and municipal sovereignty in some and did not in for Spanish city councils to their political and the of early modern that and their councils as the political of Spanish the on national sovereignty to from the of municipal sovereignty, it failed to political and authority in the of city a of the city as a political that had the of to residents of and and with of municipal councils to with a of one the political was no the of a but of a political Central America continued to on municipal as the political between this the for Central America’s independence to by the to the of political by the rather than the Spanish councils that had the to 1808 the Kingdom of to from of the of its this a of the and of the of municipal sovereignty or the of a to its political after traditional had by authorities the to for the and of the Kingdo

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 49 citations exist upstream.