¹ British Museum (BM) Add. Mss. 13,975, Ayuntamiento of Mexico-Charles III, 26 May 1771Google Scholar. Dávalos, Juan Eusebio Hernández y, Colección de docunientos para la historia de la guerra de la independenciade México de 1808 a 1821, 6 vols (Mexico, 1877–1882), IGoogle Scholar, Ayuntamiento-Charles IV, Mexico, 2 May 1792, 427–54.Google Scholar The issue of autonomy is clearly analysed in Ladd, Doris M., The Mexican Nobility at Independence, 1780–1826 (Texas, 1976), pp. 95–111Google Scholar, and by Anna, Timothy E., The Fall of the Royal Government in Mexico City (Nebraska, 1978), pp. 35–63.Google Scholar

² For the literature on exclusion, see Brading, D. A., Miners and Merchants in Bourbon Mexico, 1763–1810 (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 40–2Google Scholar (10 peninsulares and 5 creoles in the Audiencia of Mexico in 1779), and Burkholder, Mark A. and Chandler, D. S., From Impotence to Authority. The Spanish Crown and the American Audiencias, 1687–1808 (Missouri, 1977), pp. 91–9, 108 (Mexicans after 1776 lost control of domestic policy).Google Scholar

³ These issues are discussed in detail in Brading, ibid., 102–27, and in Hamnett, Brian R., Politics and Trade in Southern Mexico, 1750–1821 (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 71–98, 148–55, 177–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar ‘Older’ merchants: Antonio Bassoco (Basque, received the title of Count in 1811), Juan de Castañiza (Basque, title of Marquis, 1772), the Fagoaga brothers (investors in the silver mines of Zacatecas and Bolaños), Pedro Alonso de Alles (from Asturias, married a Mexican from Durango in 1778, title of Marquis in 1792), Pedro González Noriega (in the 1790s became a Cuernavaca sugar-estate owner), Diego de Agreda, Juan Fernando Meoquí, the Conde de la Cortina (a montañés), Gabriel de Yermo (meat-supplier for Mexico City, sugar planter of the Cuernavaca region) and others. In 1787 the Consulado of Mexico consisted of seventy-five members. ‘Newer’ merchants: Thomas Murfí (Consulado of Veracruz), Juan Bautista de Lobo, Pedro Miguel de Echeverría, Domingo Lagoa, Joaquín del Castillo (a Veracruz city councillor in 1799), José Ignacio de la Torre, Gregorio García del Corral and others. See, de Tejada, Miguel Lerdo, Apuntes históricos de la heróica ciudad de Veracruz, 3 vols (Mexico, 1850–1853), I, 339, 385–7; II, 51–3.Google Scholar For the members of the Consulado of Guadalajara see Archivo General de Indias (AGI), Seville: Audiencia de Mexico, leg. 1144, Diputados del comercio Jacoho Ugarte y Loyola, Guadalajara 20 August 1791.Google Scholar

⁴ For Gamboa, see Brading, ibid., pp. 41–5, 70–1. Another case in point is Jacobo de Villaurrutia, b. Santo Domingo, the creole oidor of the Audiencia of Mexico, who supported the autonomy projects of 1808 and was chosen as one of the electors in the parish elections of 29 November 1812 under the Cádiz Constitution. See Anna, ibid., pp. 42, 56, III. ‘Older’ does not necessarily denote either age or length of stay in New Spain: it denotes the type of political position adopted with regard to the Bourbon centralising measures. Brading stresses the newness of the Guanajuato elite: ‘Guanajuato's elite was almost entirely composed of recent arrivals, new rich, gachupín merchants and creole miners,’ ibid., pp. 318–19. With regard to the creole bourgeoisie, Ladd, ibid., p. 29, suggests a class struggle within the ranks of the elites: ‘creole-peninsular strife was evidently a class interest sustained by the middle groups to protest immigrant preference in office and in managerial positions. It was clearly an interest that was not shared by the elites.’ (i.e. the senior echelons.) Members of this creole bourgeoisiewould be: Miguel Domínguez, b. Guanajuato 1756, Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, b. Hacienda de Corralejo 1753, Carlos María de Bustamante, b. Antequera de Oaxaca 1774, Lorenzo de Zavala, Andrés Quintana Roo, Ignacio Allende, Tgnacio López Rayón, and others.

⁵ Hamnett, ibid., pp. 72–94.

⁶ Ferrari, E. Lafuente, El virrey Iturrigaray y los origenes de la independencia de Méjico (Madrid, 1941), pp. 41–4Google Scholar. Hamnett, Brian R., ‘The Appropriation of Mexican Church Wealth by the Spanish Bourbon Government. The ‘Consolidación de Vales Reales,’ 1805–1809,’ Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2 (11, 1969), pp. 85–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Among those affected were the Conde de Regla, the Fagoaga family, the Alles heir, now Marqués de Santa Cruz de Inguanzo, the Conde de la Valenciana, Antonio Bassoco, the Marqués de Castañiza, the Conde de la Cortina, the Marqués de Selva Nevada and Gabriel de Yermo. Local creole families such as the Allendes in San Miguel el Grande and the Murguías and Castillejos in Oaxaca forfeited substantial sums. Ladd, ibid., pp. 96–104, strikingly places the Consolidación in the background to the demand for autonomy.

⁷ A broader discussion may be found in Hamnett, Brian R., ‘Mercantile Rivalry and Peninsular Division: The Consulados of New Spain and the Impact of the Bourbon Reforms, 1780–1824,’ Ibero-Amerikanischcs Archiv N.F., Jg. 2 (1976), pp. 273–305.Google Scholar

⁸ For the cabildo, see Anna, ibid., pp. 26–31. There were twenty-five members, of whom four had to be peninsulares: it represented the double constituency of the senior elite (autonomy) and the creole bourgeoisie. See also Alamán, Lucas, Historia de Méjico, 5 vols (Mexico, 1849–1852), 1, 93.Google Scholar For a parallel study of the Puebla cabildo, see Liehr, Reinhard, Ayuntarniento y oligarquía en Puebla, 1787–1810, 2 vols (Mexico, 1976), 1, 111–18; II, 142–57.Google Scholar

⁹ Including the Regente, Pedro Catani, the audiencia consisted of fifteen members: eight oidores, the principal being the decano, Ciriaco González Carvajal, and the three staunch absolutists, Guillermo Aguirre, Miguel Bataller and José Arias Villafañe; three alcaldes del crimen and three fiscales. AGI Mexico 1320, Iturrigaray Miguel Cayetano Soler, No. 564, Mexico 24 May 1808.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Miranda, José, Las ideas y las instituciones políticas mexicanas, 1521–1821 (Mexico, 1952), pp. 304–10;Google ScholarMacías, Anna, Genesis del gobierno constitucional en México, 1808–1821 (Mexico, 1973), pp. 16–28Google Scholar. Ladd, ibid., pp. 95–111; Anna, ibid., pp. 35–63. Support for autonomy came from certain members of the creole nobility: the Marqueses de Guardiola, San Juan de Rayas and Uluapa, and the Condes de Sierragorda, Casa Alta and Santiago.

¹¹ Villar, Ernesto de la Torre, La Constitución de Apatzingán y los creadores del estado mexicano (Mexico, 1964), p. 32.Google ScholarHamill, Hugh M. Jr, The Hidalgo Revolt. Prelude to Mexican Independence (Florida, 1966), pp. 36–8.Google Scholar By the autumn of 1808 Iturrigaray had amassed a militia force of some 12,000 troops at Jalapa, Orizaba and Córdoba: junior creole officers, such as Lieutenant José Mariano Michelena, instigator of the Valladolid conspiracy, Captain Ignacio Allende and Captain Juan de Aldama, associates of Hidalgo in 1810, trained there. For a recent major study of the army, see Archer, Christon I., The Army in Bourbon Mexico, 1760–1810 (New Mexico, 1978).Google Scholar

¹² Hamill,ibid., pp. 173, 243.

¹³ Alamán, ibid., I, 370; II, 334–5; IV, 666. Torre Villar, ibid., pp. 358–61.

¹⁴ Benson, Nettie Lee (ed.), Mexico and the Spanish Cortes, 1810–1822 (Texas, 1966), pp. 8, 70–3.Google Scholar The viceroy ignored metropolitan orders to abolish the Juntas of Security, and used the abortive conspiracy of August 1811 as the pretext for imposing virtual martial law in the capital under the aegis of a new Junta of Police and Public Security, which superseded the older body and managed the internal passport system. Anna, ibid., pp. 78–82.

¹⁵ Mañé, J. Ignacio Rubio, ‘Antecedentes del Virrey de Nueva España, Félix María Calleja,’ Boletín del Archivo General de la Nación I ser., Vol. 19, No. 3 (07–09 1948), pp. 323–30;Google ScholarMeade, M., ‘Don Félix María Calleja del Rey. Actividades anteriores a la Guerra de la Independencia,’Google Scholaribid., II ser., Vol. i, No. I (1960), pp. 59–86. Domínguez, José de J. Núñez y, La virreina mexicana. Doña María Francisca de la Gándara de Calleja (Mexico, 1950).Google Scholar Both Anna, ibid., pp. 68, 85–9, and Archer, ibid., pp. 202–3, stress the role of Calleja.

¹⁶ Constitución política de la monarquía española (Cádiz, 1812), arts. I, 3, 18, 23–7, 34–8, 59–77, 78–103Google Scholar, defined the Spanish nation, sovereignty and citizenship, and laid down the rules for the electoral procedure in a system based upon equality before the law and representation according to population; arts. 324–35 dealt with the provincial deputations; arts. 309–18 with the elected municipalities. Details of the elections may be found in Archivo General de la Nación (AGN), Mexico, ramo de Historia, tome 445, Diputados a Cortes. Elecciones, 1809–1813. After 1811 twenty-one Mexican deputies sat in the Cortes, among them: José Cayetano Foncerrada (Michoacán), Joaquín Maniau (Veracruz), Mariano Mendiola (Querétaro), Antonio Joaquín Perez (Puebla), José María Couto (New Spain), Dr José Miguel Guridi y Alcocer (Tlaxcala), José Miguel Gordoa (Zacatecas) and José María Gutiérrez de Terán (New Spain). Neither Juan de Díos Cañedo nor Juan José Espinosa de los Monteros, elected in 1813 for Guadalajara and Guanajuato respectively, appear to have reached the Cortes. These deputies tended to reflect the attitudes of the creole professional bourgeoisie; many of them were members of the lower clergy or the legal profession.

¹⁷ AGI Indiferente General 110, Expediente sobre leuantaniento é independencia (1818), Audiencia — Regency Council, Mexico 18 November 1813.Google ScholarAlperovich, M. S., Historia de la Independencia de México, 1810–1824 (Mexico, 1967), pp. 157–8.Google Scholar

¹⁸ AGI Mexico 7822, Expedientes inventariados (1813–1814), Venegas — Minister of War, Mexico 14 December 1812.Google ScholarBenson, Nettie Lee, ‘The Contested Mexican Election of 1812,’ HAHR Vol. 26, No. 3 (08, 1946), pp. 336–50.Google Scholar

¹⁹ AGI ibid., Ores — Regency Council, Mexico 14 December 1812. Timmons, W. H., ‘Los Guadalupes. A Secret Society in the Mexican Revolution for Independence,’ HAHR Vol. 30, No. 4 (11, 1950), pp. 453–79;Google Scholar Torre Villar, ibid., pp. 291–326, 380–406. Torre Villar, ibid., Decreto de Morelos, Tecpan 13 October 1811, pp. 335–6.

²⁰ The Extraordinary and Ordinary Cortes (1810–14) split into factions over the issues of sovereignty, limitation of royal power, the structure of the representative institutions and Church-State relations. While the 1812 Constitution in arts. 249–50 preserved the fucros militar and eclesiástico, the Cortes in September 1813 abolished guilds and altered the structure of taxation.Google Scholar

²¹ Constitución, ibid., arts. 324–35. Benson, Nettie Lee, La Diputación provincial y el federalismo mexicano (Mexico, 1955), pp. 30–41.Google Scholar There were six such bodies — Mérida, installed on 23 April 1813; Guadalajara, 20 September 1813; Monterrey, 22 March 1814; Durango, 13 July 1814; San Luís Potosí, not installed; Mexico, 13 July 1824.

²² Sierra, Justo, Evolación politica del pueblo mexicano (Mexico, 1957), pp. 163, 167–8.Google Scholar Villoro, ibid., pp. 187–8. AGI Mexico 1830, Pedro Somoza — SM, Mexico 29 February and 31 March 1816. This writer accused Iturbide of making a business out of the war.

²³ Pérez, Foncerrada, Angel Alonso y Pantiga (Yucatán) and Salvador Sanmartín (New Spain), Representación y Manificsto que algunos diputados a las Corks Ordinarias firmaron … etc., 12 April 1814. In contrast, Ferdinand VII compiled a list of exaltados to be arrested; Americans' names were Maniau, Ramos Arizpe, Octaviano Obregón (New Spain), Gordoa, Couto, Guridi y Alcocer, Gutiérrez de Terán, and José Miguel de Quijano (Mérida), BN (Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid) MSS 12,463, no. 22, Conde de Buenavista, ff. 46–53, Madrid, 28 May 1824. The trials of Maniau and Ramos Arizpe are found in Archivo Histórico Nacional, Madrid (AHN), Consejo 6297 and 6298, Comisión de Causas de Estado (1925), respectively.Google Scholar

²⁴ AGI Mexico 1975, Real Palacio de México, 17 August 1824. Lerdo, ibid., II, 118; Alamin, ibid., V, 15–16; Benson, Cortes, pp. 80–1.Google Scholar

²⁵ Both Rayón and Dr Cos sought, as a result, to rally constitutionalists to the insurgent cause in two proclamations to Europeans in Mexico on 29 August and 21 October 1814. Torre Villar, ibid., pp. 283–7.

²⁶ The Urgent Patriotic Loan of August 1809 yielded a total of 1,821,000 pesos for the Royalist government; contributors included the Prior of the Consulado of Mexico and his brother, the Consul Gabriel de Yermo, the former Consul José Ruíz de la Bárcena, and the merchants – Tomás Domingo de Acha, Gablied de Iturbe, Sebastián de Heras Soto, Pedro González de Noriega and his nephew, Diego de Agreda, Tomás Ramón de Ibarrola, Antonio Bassoco and others. Large sums also proceeded from ecclesiastical corporations. AGI Mexico 2375, Lista de los contribuyentes … etc. Many of the same individuals and corporations contributed to the Patriotic Loan of March 1813, which eventually produced 1,078,900 pesos. AGI Mexico 1638, Calleja – Ministry of Finance, No. 50, Mexico 31 May 1813.Google Scholar

²⁷ Fonte, Pedro, Impugnación de algunos impios … articidos del código de anarqula … etc. (Mexico, 1816)Google Scholar, Archbishop of Mexico in succession to Antonio Bergoza y Jordán in 1825, Fonte attacked the Constitution of Apatzingán. The Bishop-elect of Michoacán, Manuel Abad y Queipo, before 1810 a reformist, attacked the Cádiz Constitution in his Informe dirigido al rey D. Fernando VII, 20 July 1815, in de Zamacois, Niceto, Historia de Méjico, 21 tomos (Barcelona, 1888–1902), IX, 861–91.Google Scholar

²⁸ AGI Mexico 1827, Victorino de las Fuentes y Vallejo, Madrid 21 September 1814. AGI Estado 40, Pérez-Duque de San Carlos, Madrid 18 May 1814.Google Scholar

²⁹ Ibid.

³⁰ The Inquisition was restored in Mexico on 4 January 1815. Medina, José Toribio, Historia del Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición en México (Santiago de Chile, 1905), pp. 465–9.Google Scholar

³¹ AGI Mexico 1830, Pérez-Calleja, Puebla 34 April 1816; Calleja-Pérez, Mexico 10 July 1816; Calleja—Council of State, Mexico 12 July 1816.Google Scholar

³² de Zavala, Lorenzo, Ensayo histórico de las revoluciones de México dcsdc 1808 hasta 1830 (Mexico, 1969), pp. 70–7;Google Scholar Sierra, ibid., pp. 149, 163–5; Villoro, ibid., p. 180. Caballero, Romeo Flores, La Contrarrevolución en la independencia. Los españoles en la vida politica, social y económica de México (1804–1838), (Mexico, 1969), p. 81.Google Scholar Viceroy Venadito stated that the number of pardons expedited from the time of the publication of the amnesty order on 30 January 1817 and the end of December 1818 came to 29,818, AGN Virreyes 273, ff. 255–63v, Venadito-Minister of War, No. 761 res, Mexico 31 December 1818. The first peninsular troops arrived in Mexico City on 13 May 1812, a force of only 3,000 men. Calleja left a total number of some 40,000 troops by the middle of 1816, recruited within New Spain over the past two decades: the peninsular element was small. An auxiliary force of 44,098 loyalists also existed, see AGN Historia 485, Ejército – organiacioacute;n, feb 1816–1821, f. 19, estado que manifiesta la fuerza de los cuerpos y corn panias sueltas de urbanos y Realistas fleles de todas armas auxiiares dcl Ejército de Nueva España, 31 August 1816. Anna, ibid., pp. 180–1, underestimates the continuing insurgent threat after 1816.

³³ Berzábal, Francisco de Paula Arrangoiz y, Méjico desde 1808 hasta 1867, vols (Madrid, 1871–1872), II, 3–10.Google Scholar

³⁴ Schmitt, Karl M., ‘The Clergy and the Independence of New Spain,’ HAHR, Vol. 34, No. 3 (08, 1954), pp. 289–332.Google Scholar

³⁵ AGI Mexico 1503, Venadito-Ministro de la Gobernación de Ultramar, No. 71, Mexico 30 September 1820. Mexican deputies to the Cortes included: Lucas Alamán (Guanajuato), Lorenzo de Zavala (Yucatán), Manuel Gómez Pedraza (Mexico), Francisco Fagoaga (Mexico), Miguel Ramos Arizpe (Coahuila), José Mariano Michelena (Michoacán), Pablo de la Llave (Veracruz), Juan de Dios Cañedo (Guadalajara) and José María Murguía y Galardi (Oaxaca), who had been the fifth member of the insurgent Congress of Chilpancingo. Benson, Cortes, 30–6.Google Scholar For the elections to the constitutional city council of Mexico, see Anna, ibid., pp. 195–6: it included autonomists and Liberals, such as Francisco Manuel Sánchez de Tagle, the young Conde de Bassoco and Gabriel Patricio de Yermo, both nephews of peninsular merchants of the 1808 generation, Ignacio Adalid, and José Miguel Guridi y Alcocer as secretary.

³⁶ Benson, ibid., pp. 125–9, 148–50. Anna, ibid., pp. 198–204, errs in denying the existence of a counterrevolutionary strain in opposition to the Cortes' measures: cf. Ladd, ibid., p. 166, ‘Mexican autonomy had decidedly conservative characteristics. It conceived of religion as exclusively Catholic and Catholicism as exclusively national and submissive to the regulation of government agencies. It required the state to be a corporate realm in the Spanish model of semi-autonomous entities reconciled in the person of the king.’

³⁷ de Apodaca, Fernando de Gabriel y Ruiz, Apuntes biograficos del excmo. señor D. Juan Ruiz de Apodaca y Eliza, Conde del Venadito (Burgos, 1849), pp. 114–20.Google ScholarPayno, Manuel, Bosquejo biográfico de los generales Iturbide y Terán (Mexico, 1843), pp. 7–9.Google ScholarDelgado, Jaime, ‘El Conde del Venadito ante el Plan de Iguala’, Revista de Indias, Nos. 33–4 (1948), pp. 957–66.Google Scholar

³⁸ Farriss, N. M., Crown and Clergy in Colonial Mexico, 1759–1821. The Crisis of Ecclesiastical Privilege (London, 1968), pp. 248–9.Google Scholar BM 9770k5, Papeles Varios, Manifesto del Obispo de la Puebla de los Angeles a sus diocesanos, 27 June 1820. AGI Mexico 1680, Venadito — Min. de Ultramar, No. 186, Mexico 31 January 1821; Venadito — Pérez, Mexico 24 January 1821; Pérez – Venadito, Puebla 26 January 1823. Only two bishops, Fonte (peninsular) in Mexico and Castañiza (creole) in Durango opposed the Plan.

³⁹ For the Plan, see Ramírez, Felipe Tena, Leycs fundamentales de México. 1808–1964 (Mexico, 1964, pp. 113–16.Google ScholarRobertson, W. S., Iturbide of Mexico (Duke Univ. Press, 1952), pp. 84–104.Google Scholar Apodaca, ibid., 63–77. de Bustamante, Carlos María, Cuadro histórico de la revolución mexicana, 4 vols (Mexico, 1961), I, 474.Google ScholarAnna, Timothy, ‘Francisco Novella and the last stand of the Royal Army in New Spain’, HAHR Vol. 51, No. 1 (02, 1971), pp. 92–111.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Delgado, Jaime, ‘La Misión a Méjico de Don Juan de O'Donojú’, Revisa de Indias Vol. 35 (01–03 1949), pp. 25–87.Google Scholar Tena Ramírez, ibid., pp. 116–19. Probably Ramos Arizpe's pressure secured O'Donojú's appointment.

⁴¹ Zavala, ibid., p 89; Robertson, ibid., p. 65.

⁴² Tornel, José María, Manifiesto del orígen, causas, progresos y estado de la revolución del imperio mexicano con relación a la antigua España (Puebla, 1821), pp. 3–11, addressed to O'Donojú's secretary.Google Scholar

⁴³ Ocampo, Javier, Las Ideas de un día. El pueblo mexicano ante la consumación de su independencia (Mexico, 1969), pp. 150–2.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Cuevas, Luis G., Porvenir de Mexico (Mexico, 1954), pp. 33–4.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Among the Mexican deputies elected in March 1821 to sit in the Cortes of 1822–1823 were Matías Monteagudo (Mexico), Andrés Quintana Roo, Cañedo (New Galicia) and Valentín Gómez Farfas (Zacatecas). Benson, ibid., 38–41. They clearly reflected different political origins and persuasions. Cuevas, ibid., p. 135; Sierra, ibid., p. 177.

⁴⁶ Tornel reacted strongly to the Cortes repudiation of O'Donojú's actions by denouncing the Spanish Liberals in his Derechos de Fernando VII al Trono del Imperio mexicano por un ciudadano militar (Mexico 15 September 1822). The signatures of the Act oF Independence on 28 September 1821 demonstrated the breadth of Iturbide's consensus: Iturbide, Pérez, O'Donojú, Monteagudo, Azcráte, Guridi y Alcocer, J. M. Fagoaga, Espinosa de los Monteros, Anastasio Bustamante, Juan Bautista Lobo, Marqués de San Juan de Rayas, Juan Bautista Raz y Guzmán (one of the ‘Guadalupes’) and others. Tena Ramírez, ibid., p. 123. For the corporative project of 8 November 1821, see Robertson, ibid., p. 138, and Ocampo, ibid., pp. 209–10. Anna, Royal Government, passim, stresses this peninsular loss of legitimacy in New Spain.

⁴⁷ See also Konetzke, Ricardo, ‘La Condición legal de los criollos y las causas de la independencia’, Estudios Americanos 2 (1950), pp. 37–54;Google ScholarPhelan, John Leddy, ‘Authority and Flexibility in the Spanish Imperial Bureaucracy’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 5 (06, 1960), pp. 47–65;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMcAlister, Lyle N., ‘Social Structure and Social Change in New Spain’, HAHR, Vol. 43 No. 3 (08, 1963), pp. 349–70;Google ScholarBrading, D. A., ‘Government and Elite in Late Colonial Mexico’, HAHR, Vol. 53 No. 3 (08, 1973), pp. 38–414;Google ScholarVillena, Guillermo Lohmann, Los Ministros de la Audiencia de Lima en ci Reinado de los Borbones (1700–1821). Esquema de an estudio sobre an nrcleo dingente (Seville, 1974).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Konetzke, Ricardo, ‘La Formación de la nobleza en Indias’, Estudios Americanos, 3 (1951), pp. 33–58;Google Scholaribid., ‘Estado y Sociedad en las Indias,’ ibid., pp. 33–58; McAlister, Lyle N., The ‘Fucro Militar’ in New Spain 1764–1800 (Florida, 1957).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Hamill, ibid., pp. 176–7. Chevalier, François, ‘Conservateurs et Libéraux au Mexique’, Asociación Mexicana de Historiadores. Instituto Frances de America Latina (Mexico, 1965), pp. 1–27.Google ScholarHale, Charles A., Mexican Liberalism in the Age of Mora, 1821–1853 (Yale, 1968), pp. 221–34, 243–8.Google ScholarTaylor, William B., Landlord and Peasant in Colonial Oaxaca (Stanford, 1972).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Mora, José María Luis, Obras Sueltas (Mexico, 1963), pp. 53–7, 622–9.Google Scholar Zavala,ibid., pp. 669–98.

⁵¹ Costeloe, Michael P., La Prirnera Reprública federal de México, 1824–1835 (Mexico, 1975), pp. 438–9.Google Scholar