Violence was part of everyday life beyond the wars and rebellions for many Yucatecans, particularly in the countryside. This background provides clues to what was considered normal or expected behavior and should make it easier to understand why, for example, acting violently was not a remote form of settling affairs and why fleeing to the bush or joining the Caste War rebels were attractive options to many lower-class Yucatecans. Life was grim for the lower classes in nineteenth-century Yucatán. Their situation varied considerably depending on whether they lived in urban or rural environments, whether they were self-employed or not and whether they lacked or had access to some means of production. Physical force intensified the severity of these living conditions, in particular for the lower classes and dependents, i.e., wives, children, and domestics, all of whom were subject to patriarchal authority. As in most parts of the world at that time, violence was a day-to-day affair in nineteenth-century Yucatán. Lower-class males suffered physical aggression at the hands of superiors and were beaten regularly by hacienda overseers and parish priests.

Organized groups of combatants such as warrior bands or armies are shaped by violence in at least two ways. One is their capacity to exert force against outsiders when, for instance, enemies are attacked or the squad is defended against external aggression. Violence is also frequently applied to group members to establish and maintain the internal hierarchy and uphold discipline. The chapter also discusses factors that foster the use of violence, such as the social or cultural distance between the conflicting parties, the dehumanization of the opponent or the reduction of personal responsibility by explicit orders or tacit encouragement. Civil wars differ from interpolity wars insofar as the contending parties are “subject to a common authority at the outset of the hostilities” (Kalyvas 2006:5). They frequently imply guerrilla tactics and counter-insurgency strategies that are particularly savage, with a disproportionate share of non-combatant victims. In addition, the violence here is “more intimate,” often among people with a high degree of closeness and peaceful interactions.

Offensive and defensive army action responded to multiple, partly contradictory logics. The supreme commander and his staff designed the official strategy to defeat the rebels, which officers at the lower levels were called upon to implement. The motives of officers and soldiers “on the spot,” such as personal gain, were frequently at odds with the official strategy, however, and shaped military activities and the use of force to suit their own needs. Finally, situational factors such as the immediate threats soldiers faced on duty, i.e., attacks, hunger and illness, impeded the pursuit of long-term goals. The need to procure food by harvesting enemy cornfields, or the quest for enrichment by looting or putting prisoners to work often triggered external violence. Both rebel and government forces were guilty of strategic massacres and other atrocities in a show of force or an attempt to demoralize the enemy or as acts of hatred and revenge. Looting was not simply an incidental feature of warfare. It became an integral part of the government system to compensate soldiers and volunteers for their efforts in the struggle against the rebels and to cover campaign expenses.

Organized groups of combatants such as warrior bands or armies are shaped by violence in at least two ways. One is their capacity to exert force against outsiders when, for instance, enemies are attacked or the squad is defended against external aggression. Violence is also frequently applied to group members to establish and maintain the internal hierarchy and uphold discipline. The chapter also discusses factors that foster the use of violence, such as the social or cultural distance between the conflicting parties, the dehumanization of the opponent or the reduction of personal responsibility by explicit orders or tacit encouragement. Civil wars differ from interpolity wars insofar as the contending parties are “subject to a common authority at the outset of the hostilities” (Kalyvas 2006:5). They frequently imply guerrilla tactics and counter-insurgency strategies that are particularly savage, with a disproportionate share of non-combatant victims. In addition, the violence here is “more intimate,” often among people with a high degree of closeness and peaceful interactions.

Kruso’b military organization was less formalized and hierarchical than that of the Federal Mexican Army or of Yucatecan militia units, but a certain amount of discipline was called for during combat and on raiding expeditions. In addition, fundamental norms had to be guaranteed to maintain order in kruso’b settlements or to settle personal disputes. The threat or use of force was key in achieving these aims, and the kruso’b political system as a form of strongman rule (caudillaje) made violence a recurrent part of the system. Follower loyalty depended much on lucrative raids. Since the success of such ventures could never be guaranteed, numerous leaders set about gaining additional revenue with the promise of more reliable returns. The wealth generated by these activities allowed them to draw on their own resources to prefinance raids or weather periods of scarcity when looting was impossible. Hence, farming or commercial activities such as the sale of rum would have rendered the authority structure more stable. The accumulation of wealth, however, was a double-edged sword. Kruso’b were not only suspicious of taxation but also of individual wealth (unlike that for the cult).

When the original military and social organization became untenable as a result of death, destruction, flight and dispersal during the war, the religious cult of the Speaking Cross provided solace and hope, and an alternative organizational focus. Allegiance to the town of origin and a number of chiefs endowed with traditional legitimacy as community leaders was replaced by identification with the cult and fealty to potent warriors. Rebel leaders began to legitimize their violent deeds as “orders from the cross.” Beyond this, the use of force was an essential component of the emerging political structure, which could be described as strongman rule (caudillaje or caudillo politics).

Internal violence played a crucial role when it came to enforcing order and military discipline and as a deterrent against desertion. For many men in the armed forces violence began with their enlistment. Each Mexican state was obliged to deliver a contingent of soldiers to the federal army. Since recruitment practices were never precisely regulated, some soldiers were enlisted by bounty, while others were forced to serve for several years, as in the case of wrongdoers or vagabonds. Soldiers not only experienced ill-treatment during recruitment but were also subjected to various forms of hardship and abuse as members of military units.

Battles between large combat units characterized the first phase of the war from July 1847 to the end of 1848, when rebel forces attempted to conquer the area controlled by the government. The insurgents mobilized large detachments, at times amounting to several thousand combatants. Late 1848, however, saw a shift in the nature of the war. According to a contemporary observer, it transmuted into “an eternal war with no quarter,” assuming “a more bloody and fierce character.” This second phase no longer saw large battles but a “guerrilla war in which engagements were daily and everywhere but with no conclusive result.” For the divided and almost routed rebels, the new Cult of the Speaking Cross became a vital cohesive element. The proclamations of the cross offered an interpretation of their destiny and presented past defeats as sanctions for having offended God’s orders, but they also inspired hope for a better future. Beyond this, veneration of the crosses provided inhabitants of different villages and followers of different leaders with a common ideological point of identification.

The Appendices supply vital information on the dynamics of the Caste War. Voluminous tables summarize the quantitative information I found on rebel assaults and army attacks. Concise and in chronological order, they represent most of the data on which this book is based. Although some minor events may be missing due to the lack of relevant data, to my knowledge this is the most detailed and most extensive compilation on these issues to date. It presents information on targets, military strength, the number, gender and status of victims (Indian or vecino), the amount of booty taken, and the losses and casualties suffered by the respective attackers. These facts allow us to grasp the changing nature of the war and gain key insights into the structure of individual rebel assaults on Yucatecan settlements, on the one hand, and army thrusts into rebel territory, on the other.

The Caste War was without doubt a bitter and violent conflict that claimed numerous victims and led to the abandonment of many settlements, notably in the central part of the peninsula. The reasons for these deaths were manifold. People of both sexes and all age groups perished in battle or during assaults by rebel or government forces, died of starvation or, weakened by hunger and privation, succumbed to epidemics and disease. The chapter provides data on the number of army and rebel casualties and civilian victims of raids. Battles between large masses of combatants only occurred at the beginning of the war. Most of the fighting after that took place in the form of raids and surprise attacks on Yucatecan cantonments, towns, villages, haciendas and hamlets or rebel settlements. On the whole, casualty rates for this type of fighting were low, with the number of dead generally below ten in most single instances. However, since army thrusts and rebel raiding expeditions affected more than one settlement as a rule, casualties often added up to several dozen dead.

The chapter gives a short description of Yucatán’s key social characteristics in the nineteenth century, allowing the reader to place subsequent chapters in their historical context. While the characterization of the Caste War by the elite as a racial struggle against progress is grossly misleading, it reflected the post-colonial nature of the Yucatecan society. The structure of the population in the region, its economy and hegemonic worldview were the product of three centuries of Spanish colonial rule in a relatively poor and isolated part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain. Colonial society was always more complex than the rigid dichotomy between conqueror and conquered or Spaniard and Indian (or Maya) permits. However, the persistence of colonial structures and the enduring importance of racist arguments in the elite discourse following Yucatán’s independence from Spain in 1821 are fundamental to understanding the conflicts that led to the outbreak of the Caste War and its interpretation by numerous contemporary observers as a racial fray.

Widespread destruction and cruelty to combatants and non-combatants alike had been common in previous insurgencies and wars, and re-emerged in the frequent uprisings and coups that haunted Yucatán during the Caste War. Institutional instability, the growing power of the military and the politicizing of the town government with the introduction of elections triggered a proliferation of violent struggles throughout the country after Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1821. For decades after Independence, no social group, ideological current or political faction commanded sufficient strength to pursue its interests in the face of rivals or put its vision of society into effect. The clergy, possessor of vast real estate, the military (the national army and the local militias) and the hacienda owners figured as the main power groups. Independence brought, among other things, republican and democratic institutions, including elections and municipal self-government. Few institutions, however, guaranteed voting freedom and fairness. Local elections in particular tended to be fraught with manipulation of results, intimidation of voters and other abuses.

Violence was part of everyday life beyond the wars and rebellions for many Yucatecans, particularly in the countryside. This background provides clues to what was considered normal or expected behavior and should make it easier to understand why, for example, acting violently was not a remote form of settling affairs and why fleeing to the bush or joining the Caste War rebels were attractive options to many lower-class Yucatecans. Life was grim for the lower classes in nineteenth-century Yucatán. Their situation varied considerably depending on whether they lived in urban or rural environments, whether they were self-employed or not and whether they lacked or had access to some means of production. Physical force intensified the severity of these living conditions, in particular for the lower classes and dependents, i.e., wives, children, and domestics, all of whom were subject to patriarchal authority. As in most parts of the world at that time, violence was a day-to-day affair in nineteenth-century Yucatán. Lower-class males suffered physical aggression at the hands of superiors and were beaten regularly by hacienda overseers and parish priests.