Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T22:49:58.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

British Honduras and the Pacification of Yucatan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

Wayne M. Clegern
Wayne M. Clegern*
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University, New Orleans, Louisiana
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

YUCATAN has been a relatively autonomous part of Mexico. The civilized northern tip of the peninsula, centering around the city of Mérida, has been a kind of socio-political island equidistant by water from Veracruz, New Orleans, Havana, and Belize, British Honduras. South and east of this civilized area extends Indian territory which has remained quite primitive, quite isolated from the north, and in rather close contact with British Honduras further to the south. In the colonial epoch Yucatan was brought under Spanish dominion with considerable difficulty; only the crudest forms of surveillance could be maintained over Indians of the peninsula. With independence the limitations of the central government's control remained distressingly apparent. Whenever the government in Mexico City fell on hard times, as it frequently did, Yucatan as a whole tended toward autonomy. At such times the provincial government at Mérida gained freedom from federal restraint but lost federal support, and in consequence usually lost control over the Indians of southern Yucatan.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , January 1962 , pp. 243 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1962

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.)

References

1 The interpretation presented in this paper is based on a considerable mass of documentation in Great Britain, Public Records Office, Foreign Office Sections 15 (Guatemala) and 50 (Mexico) [to be cited hereinafter as FO followed by the appropriate section/volume, and folio number], Microfilm, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. The newspapers of Belize for the years under consideration are another indispensable source. Citations are limited in this paper to items which are critical or characteristic. Particularly useful for relating the problem of Southern Yucatan to the broader themes of Mexican history are Beals, Carlton, Porfirio Díaz, Dictator of Mexico (Philadelphia and London, 1932)Google Scholar; Cline, Howard F., The United States and Mexico (Harvard, 1953)Google Scholar; Cline, , “The Henequen Episode in Yucatan,” Inter-American Economic Affairs, 2, No. 2 (1948), 30–51 Google Scholar; and Cline, , “Remarks on a Selected Bibliography on the Caste War and Allied Topics” in Rojas, Alfonso Villa, The Maya of East Central Quintana Roo (Washington, 1945).Google Scholar

Reflections of the Mexican desire, 1858–1887, for British cooperation in an expedition may be seen in, e.g., Frederick Seymour (Superintendent of Belize) to Governor Darling (Jamaica), Belize, April 17, 1858, FO 39/5, folios 311–320; P. Campbell Scarlet (Minister to Mexico) to Lord Clarendon (Secretary for Foreign Affairs), Mexico, September 28, 1866, FO 15/145, folios 58-60; Lord Derby (Secretary for Foreign Affairs) to Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs, July 28, 1874, FO 50/433, folios 93-97; Edward Wingfield (Under Secretary for Colonies) to Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, July 22, 1886, FO 15/232, folios 87–89; Henry Fowler (Colonial Secretary) to Sir Henry T. Holland (Secretary for Colonies), Belize, March 7, 1887, FO 15/241, folios 171–179.

2 Humphreys, R.A., The Diplomatic History of British Honduras, 1638–1901 (Oxford, 1961),Google Scholar chapter 10, deals with the diplomatic background to 1893, one paragraph carrying the story on to 1897. Messages on Foreign Affairs by the presidents of Mexico reprinted in Mexico, Departamento de Información por el Estranjero, Un siglo de relaciones internacionales de México, Vol. 39: Archivo histórico diplomático mexicano (Mexico, 1935), ignore Belize completely.

3 Religious activities of the Santa Cruz are treated in a number of works, but Villa Rojas, Maya of East Central Quintana Roo, is most useful. The barbarity of the Santa Cruz, and their willingness to coexist with the British can be seen at mid-century in the Bacalar massacres of 1858; cf. Foreign Office précis of reports on the massacre, FO 39/5, folios 121–126; the reports are at folios 130-190. Late in the century (1888 and 1896) these characteristics were again demonstrated by massacres of Santa Cruz chiefs who dared to parley for peace with the Mexicans, cf. Sir Spenser St. John to Lord Salisbury, Mexico, September 21, 1888, FO 15/248, folios 221–223; and Edward Wingfield (Under Secretary for Colonies) to Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, May 27, 1897, FO 15/321, folios 375–392.

4 Copious evidence of early anti-British activities and attitudes of the Icaiché group may be found in FO 50/432, FO 50/433, FO 50/434. For evidence of continuing ariglo-phobia, consider the career of the petulant Icaiché chieftain, Gabriel Tamay, in the 1880’s and 1890’s; see particularly Robert Pickwoad (Northern District Magistrate), Minute, [Corozal], July 6, 1888, FO 15/248, folios 166–170, with the surrounding documentation; cf. Under Secretary for Colonies to Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, London, November 18, 1899, FO 15/336, Folios 280–304.

5 For an illustration of the Icaiché-militia arrangement see discussion of Mexican intention to have the Icaiché mark a portion of the boundary with Mexican flags, Henry Fowler (Colonial Administrator) to Secretary for Colonies, Belize, January 12, 1887, FO 15/241, folios 51–59 and surrounding documents. J. P. Grant (Governor, Jamaica), Minute, Belize, January 26, 1867, FO 15/146, folios 62–82, particularly folio 69, discusses the decisive victory of the Santa Cruz over the Icaiché in 1860. Tamay was a notable collector of bribery-rent funds, as may be seen in the communications on this subject from Under Secretary for Colonies to Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, March 9, 1899, FO 15/336, folios 21–25, and folios 280–304 (November 18, 1899), and in FO 15/322, folios 201–202 (June 15, (1898) and folios 299–305 (October 29, 1898).

6 The British government were prepared to ratify in 1893, in fact the agreement and the treaty text were complete in their essentials by 1887. The complications, geographic, strategic and legal, added a full decade to the time required for final settlement; cf. SirHertslet, Edward, “Memorandum on the proposed Settlement of the Boundary Question between British Honduras and Mexico,” Foreign Office, April 29, 1887, FO 15/241, folios 279–283.Google Scholar Cf. Humphreys, , Diplomatic History of British Honduras, pp. 143–150,Google Scholar for discussion of the treaty, and negotiations to 1893.

7 The Colonial Guardian, Belize, August and September, 1893, Microfilm, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, originals deposited at the British Museum Newspaper Library, Colindale, England.

8 G. V. [illiers], Minutes, Foreign Office, October 26, 1893, FO 15/279, folios 391-395. It should be noted that Belize was already agitated by a controversial question of currency exchange when the boundary treaty was announced.

9 Dering to Salisbury, Mexico, November 22, 1895, FO 15/298, folios 392–395.

10 Ibid.; also, J. E. Plummer to Local (Belize) Firms, Belize, January 15, 1896, FO 15/321, folios 33–35; “The South Eastern Railway of Yucatan,” Colonial Guardian, April 15, 1899; “East Coast of Yucatan and Bay of Chetumal, Logwood and Mahogany Cutting and Extraction of Rubber and Chicle,” Colonial Guardian, April 15, 1899; Francis Stronge to Salisbury, Mexico, April 23, 1897, FO 15/321, folios 335–338.

11 John Bramston (Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs) to Under Secretary for Colonies, October 14, 1895, FO 15/298, folios 269–272, states the new policy. Vacillation is reflected in Villiers (Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs) to Under Secretary for Colonies, April 1, 1899, FO 15/336, folios 68–70; C. P. Lucas (Under Secretary for Colonies) to Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, April 10, 1899, folios 70–71; Foreign Office minutes on this Colonial Office letter agree to mediation reluctantly; Lucas to Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Colonial Office, May 11, 1899, FO 15/336, folios 113–114.

12 SirSanderson, Thomas, Minutes of conference on “Boundary of Mexico and British Honduras,” Foreign Office, May 11, 1889, FO 15/256, folios 162–169 Google Scholar; cf. Villiers to Under Secretary for Colonies, April 1, 1899, FO 15/336, folios 68–70; and particularly, Salisbury to Chamberlain, Foreign Office, April 29, 1899, FO 15/336, folios 107–108.

13 The common desire to avoid future embarrassments is best reflected perhaps in the routine submission of questionable situations to the Law Officers of the Crown after obtaining a consensus of the departments concerned. For their response to a typical question in the boundary matter, see R. Webster and R. B. Finlay (Law Officers) to Lord Salisbury, January 20, 1899, FO 15/336, folios 6–10.

14 The editor of Colonial Guardian, August 17, 1895, flatly opposed the expedition as detrimental to the colony; by November 12, 1898, the editor wrote in warm support of the expedition. Alarmist activities of the Belize merchants are best seen in letters to the Colonial Guardian, 1895–1897, notably in the case of two colonial “ bungays “ captured by Mexican officials in 1895 which may be traced also in official correspondence in FO 15/298, FO 15/321, and FO 15/322; the various issues are well summed up in F. M. Maxwell (Attorney General, British Honduras), “REPORT on the Proclamation to be issued to give effect to Article 2 of the Treaty between Great Britain and Mexico signed at Mexico on 8 July 1893 and afterwards ratified on the 21 July 1897,” enclosure in Under Secretary for Colonies to Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, February 1, 1898, FO 15/322, folios 96–101. See Gov. David Wilson to Chamberlain, Belize, October 21, 1897, FO 15/322, folios 76–77, for a reasoned statement of the colonists’ mixed emotions. A copy of the arms proclamation in semi-final form is in FO 15/322, folios 69–70; Stronge to Salisbury, Mexico, March 21, 1898, FO 15/322, folios 179–180, reports Mexican satisfaction at the proclamation in final form.

15 Maxwell, Report, FO 15/322, folios 96–101; Colonial Guardian, July 30, 1898; A. H. Oakes, Memorandum, Foreign Office, July 6, 1898, FO 15/322, folios 212–220, complete résumé of legality of the pontoon.

16 Oakes, ibid.

17 Wilson to Chamberlain, Belize, March 12, 1900, FO 15/336, folios 455–464, and Same to Same, March 22, 1900, folios 473–479, reports at length on the Mexican base and its significance. Henry Melhado, interview, Belize, April, 1959, answered a direct question whether the colonists had resented the Mexican expeditionary forces. He answered with the information that it was his father’s firm which made the tinned beef sale to the Mexican commisary. He went on to say “ Even if one felt rather sorry for the Indians, one couldn’t feel resentment when making such sales.” [Paraphrased after interview.] For a Mexican view of the expedition see Rebolledo, Miguel, Quintana Roo y Belice (Mexico City, 1946),Google Scholar especially chapter 3 and appendix II, a memoir by a responsible officer of the expedition.

18 Under Secretary for Colonies to Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, May 7, 1900, FO 15/336, folios 485–490, lists the compelling reasons for withdrawing offers of mediation.