|
|
|
A
History of the Censuses of 1821 and 18221
by Dr. Rod Anderson, Project Director
Just
how did these two remarkable censuses come to be? The story begins
in the summer of 1821. Under the command of Col. Agustín de
Iturbide, the Mexican insurgent "Army of the Three Guarantees" had
swept aside the last significant Spanish resistance. Mexico's long,
bloody struggle for Independence was over. On 13 June, Iturbide's commander
in western Mexico, General Pedro Celestino Negrete, occupied Guadalajara
without opposition. Leaving behind a provisional government under the
command of Col. José Antonio Andrade y Baldomar, General Negrete
soon left Guadalajara at the head of his army, marching north to combat
a small royalist force still at large in the northeastern sector of
his district.2
In
that chaotic summer of 1821, as national Insurgency leaders negotiated the
surrender of a powerful Spanish garrison in Mexico City (something accomplished
only in mid-September), there is no evidence that either the provisional national
government or Andrade's provincial administration were considering something
so complex as a population census. Nonetheless, the new government's urgent
need for funds created the first step in that process.3
The
decade-long civil war devastated the
traditional sources of government revenue
based on silver production and agriculture.
Moreover, the insurgency movement which
profited from attacking Spanish taxes
and monopolies found it politically
expedient to surrender those traditional
revenues. Faced with a large military
budget as well as the usual government
debts, Iturbide resorted to a "one
time" call for "spontaneous
donations" from all patriotic
citizens. In June the soon-to-be Emperor
of the first Empire of Mexico, Gen.
Agustín Iturbide, addressed
the nation: "Being that Independence
benefits all inhabitants..., justice,
reason and individual interest demands
that everyone contribute according
to their resources, excepting no persons
ecclesiastical or secular....the millionaire
as well as the artisan and the laborer." In
case anyone should mistake the appeal
to patriotism as offering a serious
choice, the Iturbide added that all
those who choose not "to concur
with the public welfare will be imposed
a forced contribution by the city government."4
On
the 8th of July the Andrade government
published Iturbide's bando in its entirety.
That week the city government published
a list of twenty-one "patriotic" citizens
and the relatively modest sums which
they had contributed to the cause.
Not content to rely on such modest
generosity, Andrade instructed the
district chiefs (alcaldes) to provide
a list of their adult residents for
purposes of enforcing the bando of
8 July. Although most alcaldes responded
by providing only names, addresses
and occupations, several, including
Cuartel two's diligent alcalde, helpfully
evaluated their constituents'facultades
(wealth). Most were "poor," "scarce" or "very
scarce," but some were "middling" (medianas)
or "sufficient", or rarer
still "abundant."5
Given
the context of the need for government
revenues, it is not surprising that
the political authorities decided to
take a population and economic census,
as a means of securing fiscal data
on their constituents. This does not
mean that there were not other, more
long term goals behind the Padrón
of 1821 but that the immediate looming
need for revenue certainly must be
considered paramount. By the 1st of
August and probably earlier a special
two-man Commission was already working
on plans for a complete economic and
population census (Padrón) for
what the document still called (the
former colonial kingdom of) Nueva Galicia
but which were under the late colonial
government termed the Intendencies
of Guadalajara and Zacatecas. The formal
document proposing the census was signed
by Col. Andrade on October 8.6 (See Census
Authorization)
The
initiating authority for this census
was Andrade. I have seen nothing to
suggest that the census was ordered
by the national government, although
one must assume that Iturbide had given
at least some sort of generic approval
for whatever means necessary to raise
revenue. The order was officially presented
before the Treaty of Cordoba was signed
between the insurgent leaders and the
last Spanish Viceroy, Juan O'Donoju,
recognizing the political autonomy
of the former colony. Indeed, it was
signed before the formal surrender
of the Mexico City garrison on September
13 and the organization of a national
government later that same month. Lyman
Platt's lists of the known censuses
for Mexican principalities in 1821
and 1822, only Jalisco, Zacatecas,
Nayarit and Aguascalientes-all former
Nueva Galicia provinces-consistently
had local censuses for those years.7
The
law ordered each municipal official
together with the parish priest, to
conduct "an accurate and exact
census list with all the particulars
of all the inhabitants of his district,
men and women alike, old and young,
with regards to age, ethnicity, occupation." The
decree went on to justify the necessity
of the new census by criticizing the
previous royal census of 1813-14 as
inexcusably incomplete and inaccurate
and calling on local officials to make
sure of the accuracy and completeness
of their data. In addition to the population
data, the degree ordered officials
to provide a list of eighteen types
of geographic or economic data, including
the exact location of the town and
its surrounding haciendas and ranchos,
the amount of land under cultivation
and the types of crops planted; the
presence of religious houses, mines,
industries, etc. Two months was given
as the deadline for submission of the
data. Although the data gathered took
far longer than the time allotted,
one must acknowledge that the data
itself is of considerable value to
the history of Jalisco at the beginning
of national independence.8
In
Guadalajara, the city government turned
over to newly-named police "comisarios" (one
for each cuartel) the task of conducting
the census. None of the royal alcaldes
whose names we know, appear in the
records as comisarios. This may indicate
that their (assumed) association with
the old regime made them politically
suspect or at least politically expendable.
A few comisarios completed their task
by the end of October but most turned
their padrones over to the city government
in November and December, 1821. The
last to comply was Salvador Velasco,
who turned in his Padrón on
January 1, 1822.9 Despite
the fires, earthquakes, war and revolution
of nearly two centuries, the handwritten
manuscripts have survived with ink
as dark and the handwriting as clear
as the day they were penned. See Census
Pages for sample pages from various
cuartels in 1821 and 1822.
Meanwhile,
the city fathers had little luck in
encouraging the tapatíos to
contribute to the "voluntary" tax.
Donations were so slow in coming in
that in February 1822 an amendment
to the original bando was posted in
the public plazas of the city. Entitled "Al
Público," it reminded its
citizens that article four of the bando
had given the city government the right
to exact a "forced contribution" and
suggested that those who had neglected
to make their contribution do so soon
at the store of regidor Don Cayetano
Bobadilla.10
This
change in the Ayuntamiento tactics
to a more "pro-active"stance
coincided with the appointment of a
new intendent. Iturbide's government
had replaced Andrade with Don Antonio
Basilio Gutiérrez y Ulloa as
the "Intendente de la Provincia
de Guadalaxara y Jefe Político
Superior." The documents were
always careful to note, however, that
the new Intendente was acting under
the authority of General Pedro Celestino
Negrete, who was referred to as the "Captain
General of Nueva Galicia." The
motives behind the change are not known,
but the new appointee, Don Antonio
Basilio Gutiérrez y Ulloa, quickly
made his own position clearly, ordering
the city to provide the new provincial
government with a "loan" of
a million and a half pesos.11
By
the end of March one can see the results
of the changing administration by the
lists each cuartel chief sent to the
Ayuntamiento secretary. Although the
vast majority of their constituents
were listed as "pobre" or "sin
proporciones," the pesos began
to accumulate. The city's resident
small and medium size landowners (called"labradores")
contributed the largest amount, $28,500
followed by the city's merchants who
donated $26,570 and weavers a more
modest sum of $1809. The small storekeepers
(tendajoneros) contributed $1332, the
reboceros $660, etc. The grand total
was $64,239 pesos. However, the number
of contributors were few relatively
speaking (141), and two of those, merchant
Bartolo Martínez and landowner,
Francisco Estrada, gave $10000 and
$12000 respectively.12
Others
gave somewhat more reluctantly.
"I
am unaware of the authority with which
you in your official letter of yesterday
demanded from me the quantity of four
thousand pesos. Nevertheless, wishing
to comply with the Bando of 8 June
[sic] requiring all to contribute according
to ourfacultades and being not unaware
of the necessities of the fatherland,...there
has been sent on your account the expressed
quantity which has been assigned to
me."13
Others
claimed that poverty due to war loss,
sickness, or business reversals rendered
them unable to satisfy their required
donation. A few ranchers gave horses
instead of cash. Many citizens, of
course, were in fact simply too poor
to afford to give a donation, as their
district chiefs often noted in their
lists.14
In
any case, in May, Dr. Mateos renewed
his public call for donations. This
time he pointedly noted that two of
the city's regidores had been assigned
to every four cuarteles and would "personally
pass among the homes of the citizens
of each Cuartel in order to collect
[the donations and loans], providing
the corresponding receipts."15 It
sounded very much like a threat. (See Documents:
Voluntary Tax)
The
results of this more "personal" collection
are not fully known; however, documents
of the city's archives reveal that
between June 17th and the 13th of July,
in eight separate collections the regidores
personally collected only $3,775 pesos
from two hundred individuals.
A
second census was taken in the fall
of 1822; however, its origins remain
obscure. Whether it was ordered to
provide additional, more current information
with which to extract further donations
or whether it was simply an expression
of authority on the part of the new
Ayuntamiento officials elected at the
end of the previous year, is not clear
from the evidence that has survived.
Whatever the motives for its origins,
the census of 1822 provides a rare
opportunity to "revisit" the
households of a city not long after
an earlier census. Even with the survival
of only eleven manuscripts of the twenty
four cuarteles for 1822, that opportunity
is exceptionally important. For a detailed
discussion of the value of this second
census. (See The
Importance of the Censuses of 1821 & 1822)
How
Accurate?
A
commonly asked question is to what
extent can the official census data
for those years be relied upon? This
is really a two part question. First,
did those padrones capture all the
residents of the city? The answer to
that is clearly "no." There
are many reasons why not. Citizens
of the city had reason to believe that
the padrón might be used to
enforce the "voluntary contributions" requested
by the government. Young men may have
feared the possibility of conscription
into the army; a padrón was
taken for that specific purpose, in
fact, in 1825. We also can be sure
that a rather considerable number of
transients slipped through the census
takers nets. They would have been en
route from one place to another, or
staying temporarily in places that
would have been difficult to find for
all but the most intrepid city official.
Some residents would simply have been
too poor to have attracted the interest
of the census takers, often living
in out-of-the way hovels or in places
where no government official would
have been welcome. The problem of including
everyone in a census was recognized
at the time and has not been entirely
overcome in recent times.16 Having
said this, the second part is to what
extent the missing persons affected
the accuracy and the usefulness of
the census?
If
contemporary estimates that previous
padrones missed as much as a sixth
of the population are true, is that
figure so large as to limit the reliability
of the data which remain? Certainly
it affects the reliability, but in
very specific and recognizable ways.
For those looking for specific individuals,
the odds are something like five or
six to one that such individuals will
be found. Whether these are good odd
or not depend on the person doing the
acting. If one is looking for only
one person, than one would certainly
wish for better odds. If one is looking
for larger numbers, say close to one
hundred or more, than the loss is less
critical.
If
one is studying marginal people, the
homeless, the transients, perhaps the
shadowy underworld of crime, than the
loss is near total and one should look
elsewhere. If one is studying the poor,
say, or the unskilled workers, than
the thousands of persons in those categories
will certainly offset the 15 to 20
percent of those groups who are missing,
particularly if certain "weights" are
assigned to represent the missing.
Also, the large numbers of persons
captured by these censuses guarantee
that only in cases where very few of
certain groups were recorded would
the data be unreliable. One group which
does appear to be affected in ways
which are unclear are young men in
their twenties. The sex ratio of female
to male in that age group is near two
to one, suggesting that group may have
migrated out of the city in large numbers.
Whether their loss is permanent, or
not, is not known, nor if they were
in some way "unrepresentative" of
the group of young men in their twenties
who remain (of which there are thousands
of course). Otherwise, the number who
remain would be sufficient to represent
that group, in the aggregate.
How
large this missing element would have
been is a matter of speculation. Humboldt
and Navarro both estimate that earlier
padrones missed as much as one-sixth
of the actual population. If we use
that estimate to adjust our original
figure for the padrón of 1821,
we arrive at a total population of
44,435. It is interesting to note that
the parish census taken by the Church
in 1823 shows a population of 40,272.17 This
figure is less than our adjusted one
but more than the official 1821 count.
This may mean that the parish count
was more accurate than the official
census, a not unlikely possibility.
There is some evidence that the city
was losing population after 1821. Of
the eleven cuarteles of 1822 for which
there are also surviving data for the
same cuartel in 1821, six show declines
in recorded population. And on balance,
for those eleven cuarteles there is
actually a net decline in population
in the ten months to a year between
the two padrones.
One
final thought on the issue of persons
missed in the 1821 count. If the purpose
of one's study is to capture the reality
of the city, and not obtain some artificial "completeness" of
information, than the missing data
which can be accounted for by those
who are in transience out of the city,
perhaps to work in the fields or the
mines, or to follow the armies, or
to live temporarily elsewhere for whatever
reasons may be a reflection of the
life of the city, not a weakness in
the historical perspective which the
censuses should provide. In other words,
those individuals and groups who are
missed because they would be missed
in most randomly chosen census dates
are, in fact, providing the historian
with important information about life
in the city. Granted, in the best of
all possible worlds, the missing persons
would leave behind all their relevant
personal data so that historians (or
contemporary authorities) could build
a detailed picture of their persona.
Lacking that unlikely information,
historians must procedure as best they
can, sketching in the missing data
with what evidence remains. Were they
married, for example? Find married
women whose husband are absent. These
are familiar tasks which traditionally
fall to historians and, while difficult,
are not necessarily impossible. And
where impossible, those who are missing
nonetheless perform their role as clues,
alerting the investigator that they
have missed someone, and must account
for that gap in the data by using the
techniques which is at their disposal
for that very purpose. Even the lack
of knowledge, is knowledge.
Notes
1.
Archivo Histórico Municipal
de Guadalajara (AHMG), cajas 1121 and
1123, leg. 39, 41 BIS and one unnumbered
legajo entitled "Varios Padrones
1821." The Archivo has created
a new numbering system but a conversion
index is available. Please note that
the legajos are sometimes labeled as "paquetes" to
identify the type of cardboard containers
in which they are keep. Some confusion
exists as to the exact number and timing
of the censuses taken in the years
immediately after Independence. Demographic
historian Sherbourne Cook describes
his sources for a study migration as
the census year 1822, and notes that
his data come from seven of the twenty-four
cuarteles (1, 6, 11, 12, 17, 20, 23).
(See "Migration as a Factor in
the History of Mexican Population:
Sample Data from West Central Mexico,
1793-1950," in Pierre Deprez,
ed., Population and Economics. Proceedings
of Section V of the Fourth Congress
of the International Economic History
Association, 1968 (Winnipeg: University
of Manitoba Press, 1970.) Of those
seven cuartels, I have been able to
locate the census manuscripts of four
(11,12,17,20) for 1822, of which only
11 and 17 have birthplace data. However,
the 1821 cuartels 1,6,11,20 and 23
do have birthplace data. I suspect
that the manuscripts used by Cook were
a combined 1821 and 1822. Apparently,
Cook was of the impression that the
census manuscripts he used were taken
over a period from 1821 to 1824; see
Cook and Woodrow Borah, Essays in Population
History: Mexico and the Caribbean,
vol. 1 (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1971), 181-83. In fact there
were four separate population counts.
Besides 1821 and 1822, a parish count
was taken in 1823 which obtained a
total of 40272; see AHMG, caja 1135,
legajo 38. A further official census
was taken in 1824, of which nine cuartel
manuscripts survived; see AHMG, caja
1131, legajo 49. However, the latter
appears to be for military purposes
and often does not include women or
children. Further confusing this issue
are the population counts published
contemporarily by Victoriano Roa, in
his Estadística del Estado Libre
de Jalisco. Formado de Orden del Supremo
Gobierno mismo Estado. Con presencia
de las noticias que dieron los pueblos
de su comprensión en los años
1821-1822 (Guadalajara: Unidad Editorial,
1981; 1st ed. 1825). Roa clearly states
that he is publishing the padrones
taken earlier, for which his title
indicates 1821 and 1822 (the ones we
use here) but in his text he states
the padrones were "hechos en los
años de 1822 a 1823." (Ibid.,
p. 11) Despite the confusion of dates,
it is almost certain that he means
the padrones taken in 1821 and 1822
(although possibly other principalities
in the new state of Jalisco were as
late as 1823. His actual population
count for Guadalajara is 46804, far
higher than the one actually taken
in either 1821 or 1822 but, as he states,
augmented by himself to reflect the
likely undercounting of the population
in the original census. See also Rodney
D. Anderson,Guadalajara a la consumación
de la Independencia: estudio de su
población según los padrones
de 1821-1822 (Guadalajara: Unidad Editorial,
1983), 19-23 and 161-67.
2.
Luis Pérez Verdía, Historia
particular del estado de Jalisco, desde
los primeros tiempos de que hay noticia,
hasta nuestros días, 3 vols.,
vol. 2 (Guadalajara, 1952 ed.), pp.
218-222.
3.
For national events, see Linda Arnold,
Bureaucracy and Bureaucrats in Mexico
City, 1742-1835 (Tucson, Arizona, 1988),
50-51.
4.
Archivo Histórico Municipal
de Guadalajara (AHMG), caja 1123, legajo
41BIS, exp. 18. Dated and signed by
Agustín de Iturbide, at Acambaro,
junio de 1821 and, in Guadalajara,
by José Antonio Andrade, 8 julio
de 1821. The phrase was "contribución
forzosa," later repeated by several
of the city's cuartel chiefs in their
census lists. See, for example, the "extracto
del Padrón Quartel n. 2" in
1821 and cuartel 22 in 1822 (AHMG,
CS3/1821; paquete 38, leg. 3.) In October
1821 the provisional governing junta
voted to maintain the colonial fiscal
system, although several years later
the Congress appropriated for the states
traditional revenue sources formerly
monopolized by the federal government.
Arnold, Bureaucracy and Bureaucrats
in Mexico City, 94.
5.
Ibid. The total was $386 pesos or a
median of $12 pesos. The largest amount
were two contributions of $50 pesos
each from Don José Ma. Lopes
and Don Ignacio Cañedo, well
known landowners with substantial urban
economic interests. Other contributors
were:alcaldes Don Benito Domínges
and Don Manuel del Campo ($25 pesos),
Don Ramón Murúa ($25),
Don Juan Camberas ($4), Don Alfonso
Leñero ($25), Don José de
la Madrid ($12), Don Manuel Quevedo
($25), Don Miguel Portillo ($10), Don
Mariano Flores ($25), Don Cayetano
Bobadilla ($25), Don Manuel Capetillo
($25), Don José Ma. Santos Coy
($6), Don José Ma. Cano ($6),
Don Ventura Gutiérrez ($6),
Don Juan Puente ($4), Lic. Don Francisco
Cortes ($12), Lic. Don Manuel Nogueras
($10), Don Urbano Sanrroman ($10),
Stro. Dr. Don Victoriano Mateos ($6).
The latter was the Secretary of the
Ayuntamiento and the chief administrative
officer of the city government. Most
names are recognizable as members of
the Merchant's guild (Consulado) and/or
belonging to well-known families. AHMG,
legajos 38, 39,43, 45, 46, 48. Lists
have survived for seventeen of the
city's twenty-four cuartels. It is
not clear whether these alcaldes were
appointed by the former colonial government
or by the Andrade regime, although
I suspect the former. When the full
census is taken that fall of 1821,
the cuartel authorities conducting
the census were all "comisario
de policía" and none were
the former alcaldes. Perhaps the comisarios
were viewed as interim officials because
when the 1822 census was taken, the
authorizing cuartel officials were
the victors of the city election of
December 24, 1821. None of the new
1822 officials for whom we have names
were holdovers from the previous year.
6.
The commissioners signed the decree
on 20 August 1821; city officials Antonio
Gutiérrez y Ulloa and Lic. José Anastasio
Reynoso on September 25, 1821 and Col.
Don José Antonio; Andrade on
8 October ( AHMG, caja 1123, legajo
41, exp. 230). The two commissioners
who drew up the census requirements
were Juan Manuel Caballero and Rafael
Riestra. Caballero was linked politically
to General Negrete and Andrade; it
was at Caballero's home in San Pedro
Tlaquepaque on the eve of the insurgent
occupation of Guadalajara that the
two insurgent leaders signed their
adherence to the Plan de Iguala. See
Ramiro Vallaseñor y Villaseñor,
Los primeros federalistas de Jalisco,
1821-1834 (Guadalajara: Unidad Editorial,
1981), p. 12.
7.
Lyman D. Platt, Census Records for
Latin America and the Hispanic United
States(Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing
Co., 1998). However, at least one other
state--Puebla--took a census that year.
See Guy P.C. Thomson, Puebla de los
Angeles. Industry and Society in a
Mexican City, 1700-1850 (Boulder, Colorado:
Westsview Press, 1989).
8.
Although the latter data did not appear
among the city's population manuscript
returns, the data for Jalisco was latter
published in a useful book by Victoriano
Roa,Estadística del Estado Libre
de Jalisco. Many of the manuscript
censuses for the provincial towns have
survived and are available on microfilm
from the Genealogical Society of Utah.
See Padrones 1821, 0168823-0168830,
catalogued under MEXICO, JALISCO, GUADALAJARA,
CENSUS: Iglesia Catolica. Diocesis
de Guadalajara. Padrones, 1637-1875.
For a full list of available padrones,
see Platt, Census Records. The padrones
were not parish censuses, of course,
but because many were taken by parish
priests, I assume that the manuscript
copies found their way to the Diocesis
de Guadalajara, where they were photocopied
in the 1960s. I have not seen either
the economic descriptions of Guadalajara
or the state municipalities' descriptions
or census manuscripts in either the
AHMG or the State archives.
9.
For our purposes, we consider this
cuartel as part of the "1821" census,
just as we consider the second Padrón
for cuartel 22 as a "1822" Padrón,
even though it was completed in December,
1821.
10.
AHMG, caja 1123, legajo 41 BIS, exp
18. Dated febrero 6 de 1822, "Segundo
de la independencia del imperio mejicano."
11.
AHMG, caja 1123, paquete 41.
12.
These figures come from only six cuarteles
(3,6,10,11,20,24) of the twenty four.
Others provided assessment on the capacity
of the persons to pay, but listed no
donations. The documents are scattered
throughout AHMG. Of the labradores,
the number of contributors were 21;
the mean donation $1357 and the median
only $200. Of the merchants, the number
were 24; the mean contribution $1107
and the median $250.
13.
AHMG, Legajo 41, exp. 70, Pedro Diaz,
Febrero 19 de 1822. "Desconosco
la autoridad con que Us. en su oficio
de ayer me exige la cantidad de quatro
mil pesos sin embargo de haber cumplido
con el Bando esta 8 de Junio contribuyendo
según mis facultades, pero no
desconosco las necesidades de la Patria;...
de haber hecho propio este negocio...,han
mandado enterar por su cuenta la expresada
cantidad que en el repartimiento de
que Usted hace mensión se me
ha asignado."
14.
As an example of pleas of poverty,
see a letter to the Sres. Presidente
y Vocales del Ayuntamiento de esta
capital from José Ventura García
y Sancho, febrero 20 de 1822 in AHMG,
legajo 41, exp. 62. Rafael Dávila
gave 100 horses and Manuel G. de Quevedo
gave $500 cash and 30 horses; see Pérez
Verdía, vol. 3, p. 239.
15. "Habitantes
de Guadalaxara" in AHMG, legajo
without a number entitled "varios
padrones, 1821."
16.
For the conscription padrón,
see AHMG, legajo 58, 1825. In the 1980
U.S. census, 4.8 percent of the nation's
Afro-American population were uncounted
by the census takers. This was actually
a better performance than in 1970,
when 7.6 percent were missed. The U.S.
Census Bureau have often requested
permission from Congress to sample
the larger cities which they believe,
correctly according to most experts,
would give a more accurate count of
population than an actual count! For
various political reasons, the Congress
has always refused. The same issue
arose with the 2000 population count
with the same results.
17.
The Parish census document can be found
in the AHMG, caja 1135, legajo 53,
exp. 15.
|
 |
|
Spanish
version