History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 3/Chapter 8

by Hubert Howe Bancroft

 

CHAPTER VIII.

YUCATAN.

1601-1708.

An Uneventful Period — Good Rulers — Marshal Cárlos de Luna y Arellano — The Government of the Towns — The Monarch as a Mendicant — Governor Juan de Vargas — His Maleadministration — The Licentiate Carvajal Takes his Residencia — Indian Revolts — The Succession of Rulers — Campeche Fortified — Soberanis and Martin de Ursúa — More Dissensions — Excommunication of Soberanis — Concerning the Conquest of the Itzas — Conduct of Ursúa Justified, and his Subsequent Promotion — His Qualities as a Soldier the Cause of his Preferment.

During the latter half of the sixteenth century, it will be remembered, the governors of Yucatan were constantly at variance with the church,^[1] and unseemly quarrels between the secular and ecclesiastical authorities were prevalent almost from the time that the custodian Villapando built at Mani^[2] the first convent founded in the Maya peninsula. On August 11, 1604, the marshal Cárlos de Luna y Arrellano^[3] took possession of the government, and although his reign lacked none of the usual strifes, as well with the city council as with the bishop and the secular and regular clergy, his qualities as an honest ruler and the progress which the province made during his administration were fully recognized. The strongest proof of his rectitude is that, although no failure of crops or other calamity occurred during his administration, eight years' service left him a poorer man than before, while several of his predecessors had entered upon office encumbered with debt and retired with a fortune.

To Luna succeeded Antonio de Figueroa,^[4] who is also spoken of as a just ruler, but whose government, save for a dispute with the encomenderos of Valladolid,^[5] is void of any noteworthy event. After a term of nearly five years his successor arrived in the person of Francisco Ramirez Briceño, the first governor since Montejo's time on whom the king conferred the title of captain-general. He took possession April 27, 1617,^[6] and being an experienced soldier, at once began the military organization of the country. During his brief term of office he gained the sympathy of the people, and his early death, on December 7, 1619,^[7] excited general grief.

By virtue of a royal cédula of the 24th of May 1600, now for the first time carried into effect, each of the alcaldes ordinaries governed the different towns and villas that lay within his own jurisdiction. This ceased when on September 3, 1620,^[8] Captain Arias, count de Losada y Taboada, arrived, as governor ad interim, appointed by the viceroy of Mexico. Within a few months the reins of power were delivered up to Diego de Cárdenas, a knight of Santiago, who, being appointed by the crown, took possession in September 1621.^[9] On the 13th of July 1618 the title of 'Muy noble y muy leal' was bestowed on the city of Mérida, and in August of the same year a coat of arms was presented to the cabildo.^[10] Still further to testify his regard for the inhabitants of the capital the monarch condescended to ask of them, four years later, a contribution in money.

In order to justify the cherished title, liberal donations were made to the royal mendicant by the city council, the encomenderos, and many other settlers, the governor himself setting the example with a gift of one thousand pesos out of his own salary. Little else is known of his rule, which seems to have been unusually quiet, Merida Coat of Arms. not even the customary dissensions with the clergy being mentioned by the historians, who represent Cárdenas as a pious and charitable man. After a reign of seven years^[11] he gave place to Juan de Vargas,^[12] who entered into office on the 15th of September 1628. A change now occurs in the peaceful condition of affairs, for Vargas is characterized as one of the worst governors ever appointed to the province.

Soon after the conquest of Yucatan the natives were made to feel the bitterness of their bondage. They were robbed and maltreated by their taskmasters, first under the title of alcaldes and corregidores, and later by officials under different names.^[13] During Figueroa's term of office the production of cochineal had been largely increased, and the number of such officials, who in reality were but the agents of the governor, was rapidly multiplied. In vain prohibitory and restrictive orders had been issued by the audiencia of Mexico and were now repeated in a royal cédula of March 17, 1627. Changing their title into that of capitanes á guerra, the governor evaded the execution of the law and the evil remained unchecked. New complaints were filed with the central government at Mexico, and Vargas was ordered under heavy penalties to revoke the appointments, and forbidden to make new ones under any name whatever.^[14] He remonstrated, alleging the necessity of such officials, and refused to obey until representations were made to the king and the council of the Indies.

Simultaneously an imbroglio occurred between the treasury officials and the governor, who, transgressing his authority, proposed to make an inspection of the royal treasury. To this the former objected, and in the dispute which ensued one of them was personally maltreated by Vargas, who, carried away by anger, seized the treasurer and contador and sent them to Spain to appear before the India Council, without granting time for defense.^[15] Such harsh conduct aided to swell the number of malecontents, and more claims were brought before the audiencia of Mexico, urging that an oidor be sent to investigate the matter and restore order. Vargas, when informed, tried to evade the blow, prevailing on the city council to support his protest against the necessity of such a measure by appointing his lieutenant-general their attorney.

In the mean time the licenciate Yñigo de Argüello Carbajal^[16] was sent as visitador, and presented himself in Merida August 14, 1630. Notwithstanding the governor's opposition,^[17] Carbajal began to execute his mission; whereupon Vargas ordered him to leave Mérida within six days, and the province within fifteen days, and made preparations for armed resistance. At this juncture the bishop, Gonzalo de Salazar, interfered in behalf of the visitador. Authorized by a royal cédula to co-operate with the viceroy in the suppression of local disturbances, he published, December 17, 1630, a decree, which under severe penalties and ecclesiastical censures^[18] ordered the governor, municipal authorities, and all the inhabitants to obey the orders of Carbajal.^[19]

Free from restraint, the licentiate continued the trial, and after two months sentenced the governor on some of the charges to temporary suspension from office and heavy fines, reserving the other accusations for the decision of the audiencia of Mexico, whither the accused was to be sent as a prisoner. Other officials were also punished, and compensation granted to the oppressed natives. In March 1631 Carbajal left with his prisoner for Mexico,^[20] the government remaining in charge of the alcaldes till November, when Fernando Centeno Maldonado arrived, being appointed by the viceroy as governor ad interim. He was replaced by Gerónimo de Guero, who took charge in 1633. His rule was brief, and is favorably noticed by the chroniclers of his period. After his decease at an advanced age on March 10, 1635, the government again devolved on the alcaldes; but a few months later was transferred to Centeno, who for a second time had been temporarily appointed by the viceroy. During his term of office, which lasted until March 4, 1636, he had serious dissensions with the Franciscans, and in consequence of their instigations his removal was ordered. He died, however, before the arrival of his successor, Andrés Perez Franco, who on March 14th took office as governor ad interim, holding that position only two months.

On May 17, 1636, Diego Zapata de Cárdenas, marqués de Santo Floro, presented his credentials from the court of Spain as governor and captain-general, and was duly admitted. Although the chroniclers disagree in their estimate of his character, they admit that serious dissensions occurred between him and the city council, which corporation even planned a coup d'état. The fact, however, that his term of government was extended to nearly eight years speaks strongly in his favor, as also do his measures to relieve the natives from the payment of oppressive taxes.^[21] His efforts on their behalf are probably due in part to a revolt among the Bacalar Indians, which, beginning in 1636, lasted till after his removal from office.

The treatment of the Indians had, as we have seen, always given rise to dissensions and doubts, both in old and New Spain. Meanwhile they were continually being robbed, now by the insatiable agents of the governors, now by the priests and friars, and between both they were despoiled of whatever they possessed. It is not strange then that the true faith had little attraction for them, or that occasionally they attempted to shake off a yoke which plunged them not only into a condition worse than they had known in aboriginal times, but threatened the extermination of their race. It was seldom, however, that they even temporarily succeeded, and a severe administration

Map of Yucatan

of justice by the Spanish authorities always suppressed their mutinous tendencies for a number of years.

It is thus that, at frequent intervals, we have to record Indian revolts. The first one, in 1610 at Tekax, caused by dissatisfaction with the cacique, was easily quelled, and three of the ringleaders forfeited their lives on the gallows of Mérida. In 1633, owing to a famine some years before, a large number of natives who had abandoned their villages were brought back by force, the governor Centeno employing to that end energetic measures. A gibbet was erected wherever he went, and death threatened to all who would coöperate in concealing fugitive Indians. Thus in the coast districts alone more than sixteen thousand tributaries were restored in a short time to their settlements.^[22] A more extensive outbreak, however, occurred in 1636, occasioned probably by the efforts of the governors to exact the contributions for the Barlovento fleet. Gradually the revolt assumed greater dimensions, and in 1639 only the villa of Salamanca had remained faithful, the remainder of the Bacalar district having openly declared its sedition, and relapsed into idolatry. Armed expeditions were proposed, but objected to by the governor, Santo Floro, and after long deliberations only some friars were sent to the seditious region, a proceeding which utterly failed. It was only in 1644 that part of the fugitives were induced to return to their villages.^[23] Later revolts, though most of them of less importance, occurred in 1653, 1669, and 1670, when the Indians of Sahcabchen rebelled, and again about 1675.^[24] Still there remains no doubt that the natives were gradually brought under subjection, and the zealous missionaries by their incessant labors obtained more and more influence over the native population.

The successor of Santo Floro, Francisco Nuñez Melian,^[25] took charge of the government the last day of December 1643, but his sudden death on April 13, 1644,^[26] again made necessary a temporary appointment by the viceroy at Mexico. Enrique Dávila y Pacheco was the one selected, and on June 28, 1644, he assumed office, relieving the alcaldes ordinaries, who had ruled in the mean time. His administration is recorded as one of the best ever experienced. At his residencia it is said that only one insignificant charge was brought against him, and after the death of his successor Estévan de Azcárraga,^[27] who was in charge from December 4, 1645, to August 8, 1648, he was again summoned by the viceroy of Mexico to represent the crown.^[28] He remained in that position from December 15, 1648, to the 19th of October, 1649, at which date a new ruler, appointed by the crown, arrived in the person of the count de Peñalva.^[29] Under his rule a serious famine occurred, and great numbers died of starvation. The evil was increased by the injudicious though well intended measures of the governor to remedy it. The number of enemies thus created was increased by his avaricious proceedings, and on August 1, 1652, he was found assassinated in his room.^[30]

After the death of Peñalva governors followed in rather quick succession, but nothing important is connected with their time. The temporary rule of the alcaldes ended when on November 19, 1652, Martin de Robles y Villafaña, nominated by Viceroy Alva de Lista, took charge of the government, but being promoted to the province of Carácas was relieved by Pedro Saenz Izquierdo in November 1653, also by appointment from Mexico, and it was not until May 1655 that Francisco de Bazan arrived from Spain with a commission from the crown. He was followed by José Campero,^[31] who governed from August 1660 till his death on the 29th of December 1662.^[32] Between his successors, Francisco de Esquivel and Rodrigo Flores Aldana, temporary troubles arose, each claiming the government, and finally the latter, who had been removed by the audiencia of Mexico, was reinstalled on January 29, 1667, by order of the king,^[33] with whom he was a favorite. Without any apparent reason he was superseded on December 29, 1669, by Frutos Delgado, oidor of the audiencia of Mexico, who came to take his residencia. But in the following year Fernando Francisco de Escobedo, appointed immediately by the crown, took charge of the government.^[34] During his rule, which lasted from October 18, 1670, to March 27, 1672, the governor, who was an experienced soldier, directed his attention to the military affairs of the province, and the improvements which he made were continued by his successors, Miguel Franco Cardoñes and Sancho Fernandez de Angulo y Sandoval, of whom nothing worthy of note is recorded.^[35] The following governor, Antonio de la Iseca y Alvarado, an old inhabitant of Mérida, was removed through the intrigues of his enemies on the 20th of February, 1679, by the oidor Juan de Aréchiga, sent by the audiencia of Mexico. He was reinstated, however, one year later, and remained in undisturbed possession till 1683,^[36] when on July 14th Juan Bruno Tello de Guzman succeeded him. The administration of this governor is marked in the annals of Yucatan by the frequent invasions of pirates, who, owing to the pusillanimity of Tello, met with little resistance. To check such raids the fortification of Campeche was resolved upon, but it was only under the rule of his successor, Juan José de la Bárcena,^[37] an experienced soldier and energetic man, that any considerable progress was made with the works.^[38]

The rule of the last two governors, who at the close of the seventeenth century administered the affairs of the province, is noteworthy for the internal dissensions which prevailed. On August 20, 1693, Roque de Soberanis y Centeno, a man rather young for such high position, was intrusted with the reins of power.^[39] Mainly through lack of experience he made, within a short time, a number of enemies, in whose ranks appeared also the bishop of Yucatan, Juan Cano y Sandoval.^[40] The dispute became so fierce that Soberanis was excommunicated in July 1694, and upon complaints laid before the audiencia of Mexico was removed from office, and summoned before that tribunal.^[41] Martin de Ursúa y Arizmendi, the governor elect, was appointed to replace Soberanis, and at once made preparations to avail himself of the opportunity to carry out his favorite project—the conquest of the Itzas.

Meanwhile, however, Soberanis, acquitted in Mexico, was restored to his government, and from this time to his death on September 25, 1699,^[42] made all possible opposition to the schemes of his successor, notwithstanding royal orders to the contrary. Ursúa's second term lasted from 1699 to the end of 1703, when he was deposed by the viceroy of Mexico, on a charge of implication in the murder of an alcalde of Valladolid.^[43] Ursúa went to Spain, where he not only justified his conduct, but obtained new distinctions, and was reinstated on June 6, 1706, holding office till the 15th of September 1708, when he was promoted to the presidency of Manila.^[44]

The services that he rendered in the expedition against the Itzas in 1697, and which have already been related,^[45] were probably the main reason for his preferment, for during that campaign he displayed all the qualities of a cautious and capable leader.^[46]

 

 

1. In Hist. Mix., ii. 428 et seq., this series, the conquest of Yucatan is related, and on pages 648-654 of the same volume is a brief sketch of the history of this province during the latter half of the sixteenth century.
2. About 1550.
3. The author of Datos Biográficos, in Cartas de Indias, 791-2, says his Christian name was Tristan and that of his father Cárlos.
4. Ancona, Hist. Yuc., ii. 201, misled by a contradictory statement in Cogolludo, gives the date of Figueroa's succession to the government as August 29, 1612, instead of March 29th, for which statement he only refers to Lara.
5. They surprised him on a journey to the River Lagartos, and sent him by force to the viceroy of Mexico, together with a long list of accusations. Immediately acquitted by the latter, he returned to Merida, and against all expectation refrained from punishing the aggressors.
6. Cogollvdo, Hist. Yuc., 474. In another place the same author says Figueroa ruled till September 27, 1617.
7. Cogolludo says his death resulted from an illness, and Lara that he was poisoned.
8. August 28th. Lara, Apuntes Históricos; Castillo, Dice. Hist. Yuc., 61.
9. 'Manifestaba su Magestad las graues necessidades. . .por las guerras que tenia con Hereges, Turcos, y Moros.' Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., 541.
10. The text of the cédulas by which the title and coat of arms were bestowed is given in Cogollvdo, Hist. Yuc.,461-2. Calle is in error when he gives 1619 as the date in Mem. y Not., 82.
11. Ancona says erroneously he ruled only four years.
12. A knight of Santiago and descendant of the renowned Spanish general, Alonso de Vargas.
13. Jueces de grana, de vino, ó de agravios.
14. A royal cédula of August 23, 1642, approved this decree of the audiencia. Calle, Mem. y Not., 88.
15. Ancona, Hist. Yuc., ii. 221, intimates as the probable reason an attempt of the officials to exact the fines imposed by the audiencia of Mexico.
16. A knight of Calatrava and oidor of the audiencia of Mexico. His commission was issued on the 7th of April, 1630. Cogollvdo, Hist. Yuc., 566-76.
17. Vargas claimed as governor and captain-general only to be answerable to the king and the council of the Indies. He also alleged the great expense and damage to the native population, which the visitador's mission would cause. Cogolludo gives these and other reasons in a lengthy way. Hist. Yuc., 567-9. The governor was wrong, however; orders of the crown dated November 2, 1627, and May 19, 1631, placed the government of Yucatan under that of Mexico. Montemayor, Svmarios, 91, 159; Recop. de Ind., ii. 110.
18. Excommunication mayor, heavy fines, and liability to be tried for high treason.
19. Ancona, Hist. Yuc., ii. 223, says nothing about the bishop's intercession being based on a royal cédula.
20. In Mexico Vargas was committed to prison, and a trial instituted against him, but before its conclusion he died. Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., 576-7. Ancona, Hist. Yuc., ii. 223-4, and Castillo, Dicc. Hist. Yuc., 60-1, attribute his death to grief caused by the stern rebuke of the viceroy. It is nowhere else intimated that Vargas possessed a conscience, or any sense of shame. During his administration heavy rains occurred, lasting, as Cogolludo says, for 27 consecutive days, and causing a severe famine.
21. The tribute of the Indians amounted in 1643 and 1644 to about 154,000 pesos, including the former encomiendas of Montejo, and more than 20,000 pesos belonging to those of the crown. The whole number of encomenderos in Yucatan was 131. Cogollvdo, Hist. Yuc., 385-6; Calle, Mem. y Not., 82-8, 183.
22. For details of this expedition see Cogollvdo, Hist. Yuc., 593-5; also Ancona, Hist. Yuc., ii. 224-5.
23. Governor Francisco Nuñez Melian succeeded in bringing back about 9,000 Indians. Cogollvdo, Hist. Yuc. 679.
24. The date for the last revolt cannot be exactly fixed, as it is not given by Villagutierre, who, in his Hist. Conq. Itza, 146-7, merely alludes to them.
25. The general Luis Fernandez de Córdoba, previously appointed, was promoted to the government of Cartagena before undertaking the voyage. Gogullvdo, Hist. Yuc., 678.
26. During a review of the military forces at Mérida.
27. Azcárraga died during an epidemic which, in 1648, played havoc in Yucatan to such an extent that no bells were tolled except for mass. Not even the governor's death met with an exception, and the burial took place without any of the usual solemnities. Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., 714-30, gives many details referring to the pestilence. From 1627 to 1631, and later in 1636, floods and bad crops had also produced famine and epidemics, of which many people died. CogoUvdo, Hist. Yuc., 202-3, 558, 592-3.
28. One of the alcaldes, who in the interim held the goverment, was Juan de Salazar Montejo, a great-great-grandson of the Adelantado Francisco de Montejo.
29. Dávila had been held in such esteem, that after his departure from Yucatan, the city council of Mérida in a letter to the king greatly eulogized his administration. Later, after the death of Peñalva, a petition was sent to Spain, requesting that Dávila be sent as governor for a third time. Cogollvdo, Hist. Yuc., 731-3. The full title of his successor was Garcia de Valdés Osorio, first count de Peñalva. Id., 742.
30. Cogolludo assigns no cause for his death, but his unusually brief mention of his demise rather confirms the statement of Lava, that such a crime was committed. No clue was ever obtained.
31. Castillo says erroneously in one place that Bazan 's successor was Antonio Ancona, whereas in another he gives José Campero. Dicc. Hist. Yuc., 54, 142-5. His full title was José Campero de Sorrevilla, maestre de campo and knight of Santiago. Órdenes de la Corona, MS., iv. 2.
32. His death was hastened, if not caused, by a trick played on him in the cathedral of Mérida, at a late hour of the night, and the bishop and the Jesuits were supposed to have taken part in it, in order to gain more influence over him. Registro Yucateco, ii. 74-6.
33. Esquivel delivered the government to Flores on July 28, 1664, having ruled since September 4, 1663, but, obtaining his opponent's removal, again took possession on the 28th of March 1665. Guijo calls him Flores de Vera. Diario, in Doc. Hist. Mex,, série i., i. 548.
34. Robles, Diario, i. 140; Juarros, Guat., 265. He was a knight of the grand cross of St John, bailio of Lora, and general of the artillery of Jaen. Ancona, Hist. Yuc., ii. 263, calls him Fernando Franco de Escobedo, and says he was commander of the villas of Samayon and Santi-Estévan. He was later promoted to the presidency of Guatemala.
35. Cardoñes governed from March 27, 1672, till September 28, 1674, and Angulo from that date to the 18th of December 1677. Ancona, Hist. Yuc.,ii. 263-5.
36. In 1682 a conflagration destroyed half of the town of Campeche. Robles, Diario, i. 343.
37. Castillo, Dicc. Hist. Yuc., 89-91. Robles, Diario, i. 399, calls him Barrera. He ruled from July 25, 1688, till August 20, 1693.
38. Details are given in Castillo, loc. cit. The total cost of the fortification of Campeche, derived from contributions by the crown and the inhabitants, and from certain imposts, amounted to more than 200,000 pesos. In February, 1690, the first pieces of heavy artillery ever seen in the province were landed at the town.
39. He owed his appointment to his descent from one of the wealthiest and most influential families of Cádiz.
40. Biographers of the bishop, who was a native of Mexico, speak of him in very favorable terms. See Registro Yuc., ii. 278-81; Castillo, Dicc. Hist. Yuc., 145; Concilios Prov., 1556-65, 359-60; Figueroa, Vindicias, MS., 70; Robles, Diario, i. 355, 360, 375.
41. An oidor, Francisco Zaraza, sent to Mérida in December 1694 to investigate the matter, returned to Mexico in July 1695, without pronouncing sentence, the bishop having died in February 1695. Robles, Diario, ii. 159-60, 167, 170, 172.
42. Of yellow fever, the first time the disease appeared in the country. Lara, Apuntes Históricos, followed by Castillo, Dicc. Hist. Yuc., 69.
43. A visitador, Cárlos Bermudez, was sent from Mexico and later a governor ad interim appointed, Alvaro de Rivaguda, who punished several of the guilty persons, but failed to discover any evidence of the complicity of Ursúa'. Robles, Diario, 1st ser., ii. 468, 477, 484; Ancona, Hist. Yuc., ii.,316-25.
44. The titles of count de Lizarraga Vengoa, conqueror, perpetual governor, and captain-general of the Itza provinces, were among others given him. Elorza y Rada, Nobil., 211.
45. See Hist. Cent. Amer., ii. 681 et seq., this series.
46. In addition to the authorities already quoted, the reader is referred to Cogollvdo, Hist. Yuc., 220, 385-6, 452-752, passim; Villagvtierre, Hist. Cony. Itza,. 326-40, 410-17, 535-41; Guijo, Diario in Doc. Hist. Mex., 1st ser., i. 223-4, 548; Robles, Diario, i. 81, 140, 312, 343, 355, 358, 375, 399, 452, ii. 155, 183; Calle, Mem. y Not., 84-5, 87-8; Ordenes de la Corona, MS., iii. 64; Barbachano, Mem. Camp., 2-8; Castillo, Dicc. Hist. Yuc., 54, 59-61, 63, 69, 72, 93, 294-5; Juarros, Guat., i. 33; Stephens, Yuc., ii 194; Dicc. Univ., vi. 785-6; viii, 494, x. 763-6.