We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
Patterns of land ownership and availability define pre-industrial society. Land defines wealth and translates into political power and social status. Thus historians of Latin America have been interested in land usage and distribution before economic and social history came into vogue. However, the major focus has been on the hacienda, not the small holders, and the assumed model was Mexico, not Paraguay or Colombia. A series of colonial regional studies on Mexico and Peru published in the 1970s and 1980s demonstrated the variation in economic power and regional differences of the hacienda but only incidentally probed the status of small holders. The recognition of the persistence of a variety of early land patterns, including indigenous communal landholdings, however, has challenged earlier interpretations of the socioeconomic power of the hacienda. The awareness of differences of market factors and population density within regions laid the basis for new questions about ownership, land usage, labor, and the forms of internal and external community relations.
1 Chevalier, François, Land and Society in Colonial Mexico tr. by Simpson, L.B. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963)Google Scholar, the model for hacienda studies, views the hacienda as the dominant colonial agricultural institution. Keith’s, Robert G. introduction to the collection of articles in Haciendas and Plantations in Latin American History (New York: Holmes and Meler, 1977), p. 5 Google Scholar supports a similar view. In his survey of the literature Mörner, Magnus, notes the influence of Mexican studies. “The Spanish American Hacienda: A Survey of Recent Research and Debate,” Hispanic American Historical Review, 53:2 (May 1973),Google Scholar 1. Although written more than ten years ago, the best general review of issues associated with the hacienda remains Young’s, Eric Van “Mexican Rural History since Chevalier: The Historiography of the Colonial Hacienda,” Latin American Research Review 18:3 (1983), 5–61 Google Scholar. Juan Carlos Garavaglia, with a contrary concern, argues that nineteenth-century studies of rural Buenos Aires have encouraged false conclusions about colonial land patterns. “Existieron los gauchos?,” Anuario IEHS, Tandil (1987), 42–3.
2 More recently, revisionist Peruvian studies have emphasized the diversity of agricultural land pat-terns. See Davis, Keith A., Landowners in Colonial Peru (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1984)Google Scholar and Ramírez, Susan E., Provincial Patriarchs: Land Tenure and the Economics of Power in Colonial Peru (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1986)Google Scholar, While Young, Eric Van, in his Hacienda and Market in Eighteenth Century Mexico: The Rural Economy of the Guadalajara Region, 1675–1820 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981)Google Scholar, examines the hacienda within a regional context, and in “Hacienda historia regional consideraciones metodológicas y teóricas,” Anuario IEHS, Tandil (1987), 255–281 argues that the best unit for examining Mexican rural history is the region. This same argument can be made for the Upper Plata Region. Although his focus is trade rather than agriculture see Whigham, Thomas, The Politics of River Trade: Tradition and Development in the Upper Plata, 1789–1870 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1991).Google Scholar
3 Taylor, William B., documents indigenous retention of communal land holdings in Oaxaca through the nineteenth century in Landlord and Peasant in Colonial Oaxaca (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1972).Google Scholar David, A. Brading points to the increasing influence of tenant farmers and sharecroppers as haciendas influence declined in Haciendas and Ranchos in the Mexican Bajío, León 1700–1860 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978)Google Scholar. Cheryl English Martin traces the development of haciendas, villages, and small farms in Morelos, , Mexico from 1580–1810 in Rural Society in Colonial Morelos (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1985)Google Scholar. Jean Meyer, with statistics from Michoacán disputes the assumption that haciendas had absorbed most Mexican land by 1910; see “Haciendas y ranchos campesinos en el Porfirato: algunas falacias estadísticas,” Historia Mexicana, Colegio de México 34:3 (enero/marzo 1986), 477–509. Susan Deeds provides another example of small holdings and tenant farmers in “Land Tenure Patterns in Northern New Spain,” The Americas 41:4 (April 1985), 446–61.
4 Garavaglia, Juan Carlos, “Economic Growth and Regional Differentiations: The River Plate Region and the End of the Eighteenth Century,” Hispanic American Historical Review 65:1 (February 1985), 51–89;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Amaral, Samuel, “Rural Production and Labour in Late Colonial Buenos Aires,” Journal of Latin American Studies 19:2 (November 1987), 235–278;Google Scholar Schryer, Frans J., Ethnicity and Class Conflict in Rural Mexico (Princeton: Princeton University Press, NJ, 1990).Google Scholar
5 Examples of works that do deal with the nineteenth century are Mallon, Florencia E., Peasant Struggle and Capitalist Transition, 1860–1940 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983);Google Scholar Le Grand, Catherine, Frontier Expansions and Peasant Protest in Colombia, 1850–1936 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1986)Google Scholar and Brading, Haciendas and Ranchos; Catherine Le Grand argues that the continued significance of the hacienda in the nineteenth and twentieth century is not directly a result of its colonial heritage in “Labor Acquisition and Social Conflict in the Colombian Frontier, 1850–1936,” Journal of Latin American Studies, 16:1 (May 1984), 27–49.
6 There are some important exceptions. Political Scientist, Seligson, Mitchell A., spent half his monograph on the peasant, see Peasants of Costa Rica and the Development of Agrarian Capitalism (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980)Google Scholar. Two historians who go beyond the traditional focus are Florencia Mallon E. , Peasant Struggle and Capitalist Transition, and Catherine Le Grand, Frontier Expansion and Peasant Protest in Colombia.
7 Although he notes the exception of Costa Rica, see the work of political scientist Brockett, Charles, Land, Power, and Poverty: Agrarian Transformation and Political Conflict in Central America (Boston: Uneven Hyman, 1990), 13–14.Google Scholar
8 Although anthropologists and economists consider peasant strategies, this topic has been generally ignored by historians. Chonchol’s, Jacques, “Agricultural Modernization and Peasant Strategies in Latin America”, International Social Science Journal 124 (May 1990), 135–151 Google Scholar and Smith’s, Carol A. “Survival Strategies Among Petty Commodity Producers in Guatemala,” International Labor Review 128:6 (1989), 791–813 Google Scholar ask questions worth considering for the nineteenth century.
9 Whigham, Thomas, [see his The Politics of River Trade, 197 Google Scholar, 199] and I have a basic disagreement about the nature of the Paraguayan economy between 1811 and 1865. He views the well-being of the Upper Plata as dependent on access to the markets of Buenos Aires. José Gaspar de Francia, who limited access to those markets, is thus a patrimonial ruler who failed to promote economic development. To the contrary, I view Francia as promoting the economic prosperity of Paraguay through self-sufficiency. It was this alternate economic model under both Francia and Carlos Antonia López which provided economic prosperity and a higher standard of life for the population of small farmers. Pastore, Mario H., “Crisis de la hacienda Pública, regresión, institucional y contracción económica; consecuencias de la independencia en Paraguay, 1810–1840,” in La independencia americana: consecuencias económicas Google Scholar ed. de la Escosura, Leandro Prados and Amarai, Samuel (Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1993), pp. 164–200 Google Scholar argues that the economic level of the early nineteenth century economy dropped below that of the eighteenth century. Neither Pastore or Whigham distinguish between economic development and economic growth. Both assume that if there is economic growth the mass population will benefit.
10 Juan Carlos Garavaglia analyzes the evolution of the Paraguayan rural economy in the eighteenth century. See “Soldados y campesinos; dos siglos en la historia rural del Paraguay,” Suplemento Antropológico 21:1 (June 1986), 7–71 and Mercado internai y economía colonial (Mexico: Editorial Grijalbo, 1983), pp. 195–260.
11 I preferred not to use the term peasant, primarily because of the controversy over the definition. See Seligson, , Peasants of Costa Rica, pp. 173–175 Google Scholar for a clear discussion of the controversy. I have thus used the term small farmers because that is what the Paraguayan farmer was, a farmer who owned or utilized small amounts of land. Given the cheap rental prices and the ease of obtaining the land, it made little difference whether the farmer owned the land. In that sense I have used a classic definition of a peasant, who has access to land owned, rented or sharecropped. Peasants are rural cultivators with low economic status, inadequate capital, little land, limited control of production and distribution, and little political power. However, in Paraguay from 1810-1865 small fanners had more influence than it is usually assumed that peasants have.
12 In 1864, there were 53,019 households in Paraguay. These households either owned land or had access to land. See Reber, Vera Blinn, “The Demographics of Paraguay: A Reinterpretation of the Great War, 1864–70,” Hispanic American Historical Review 68:2 (May 1988), 300–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The government officials collected data on crop production and number of households for years 1864–67. This data underscores two points: the holdings were small, as indicated by the amount of crops being produced per household, and the Paraguayan economy was dependent upon these holdings for food production and export.
13 A cuerda is equal to a manzana, which is equal to approximately 1 1/4 acres. One square league equals 4,500 acres or 3,600 ceurdas. I have chosen to use the land measurements of M.B. Mulhall because he recognizes that the land measurements of Paraguay are different from Argentina and because the statistical material has proved to be accurate. See Handbook of the River Plate Comprising Buenos Aires, the Upper Provinces, Banda Oriental and Paraguay (Buenos Aires: Standard Printing Office, 1869), p. 158.
14 Beaurepaire Roham, Henrique de, “De Cuyabá oa Rio de Janeiro pelo Paraguay, Corrientes, Rio Grande do Sul e Santa Camarina em 1846,” Revista Trimensal de Historia e Geographic ou Jornal do Instituto Histórico Brazileiro, 2 (3rd trimester de 1847), 387;Google Scholar Demersy, Alfred, Histoire physique, économique et politique de Paraguay e des establissements des Jesuits (Paris: L. Hachette et eie., 1860), p. 2 Google Scholar, 11.
15 P. Méndez, 1852, Archivo Nacional, Asunción (hereafter cited as ANA), Sección Propiedades y Testamentos (hereafter cited as SPT) 910, no. 1.
16 Washburn, Charles A., History of Paraguay with notes of personal observations and reminiscences of diplomacy under difficulty (Boston, 1871), I, 454.Google Scholar Johnson, Keith, “Recent Journeys in Paraguay,” Geographical Magazine, 2 (1875), 267.Google Scholar
17 R.B. Hughes to Hood, Montevideo, March 18, 1842, Public Record Office, London (Hereafter cited as PRO), Foreign Office (hereafter cited as FO), 15/20; Inventario Pertenenciente a los estancias de Paraguari, ANA, Sección Nueva Encuademación (hereafter cited as SNE) 1822; Page, Thomas J., La Plata, the Argentine Confederation and Paraguay (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1859), 144.Google Scholar Cabra Giménez, Guillermo A., Semblanzas de Concepción (Asunción: Imp. Comuneros, 1970), 40–41.Google Scholar Two major articles that deal with Guaicurú resistance are Saeger, James Schofield, “Another View of the Mission as a Frontier Institution: The Guaycuruan Reductions of Santa Fe, 1743–1810,” Hispanic American Historical Review, 65:3 (August 1985), 493–517 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Ganson, Barbara, “The Evueví of Paraguay: Adaptive Strategies and Responses to Colonialism 1528–1811,” The Americas 45:4 (April 1989), 461–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 Lucien de Brayen to Monsieur Drouyn de Lhuys, Asunción, June 10, 1855, Archives du Ministère des Affaires Etrangère, Paris (hereafter cited as AAEP), Correspondance consulaire et commerciale (hereafter cited as CCC), I; Libro de la receptoría de esta capital sobre derecho de alcavala del cargo de José Mariano Bargas para un año desde primero do enero a fin de deciembre 181, ANA, SNE, 2558; Cuaderno para la recaudación del directo de alcabalas en esta capital, receptor Pedro Pasqual Arze, 1829, ANA, SNE 1254; Libro de la receptoría de esta capital sobre derecho de alcavala, 1835, ANA, SNE 3121; Cuaderno para la recaudación del derecho del alcavala en esta capital, 1843, ANA, SNE 1931. A good secondary source on the cattle industry is Cuevas, Efraín Martínez, La Ganadería en el Paraguay desde la conquista hasta la Guerra Grande (Asunción: La Rural Ediciones, 1987),18 Google Scholar,22
19 Pastore, Carlos, La Lucha por la tierra en el Paraguay (Montevideo: Editorial Entequera, 1972), pp. 99–103 Google Scholar, 121–122. Pastore, , “Orígenes evolución y estado actual del latifundio y minifundio en el Paraguay,” Estudio Paraguayos, 3:1 (Oct., 1975), 115–121;Google Scholar Williams, John Hoyt, “Paraguay’s Nine-teenth Century Estancias de la República, Agricultural History, 47:3 (July, 1973), 210–214.Google Scholar
20 Demersay, , Histoire physique économique et, p. II, 11 Google Scholar.
21 Mulhall, Michael George, Handbook of the River Plate comprising the Argentine Republic, Uruguay and Paraguay (Buenos Aires: Standard Printing Office, 1895), 638;Google Scholar Du Graty, Alfredo M., La República del Paraguay, trans., Calvo, Carlos (Besanzo: Imprenta de José Jacquín, 1862), p. 33.Google Scholar Warren, Harris Gaylord, Rebirth of the Paraguayan Republic: The First Colorado Era, 1878–1904 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1985), pp. 169–170,Google Scholar suggests that in 1882 an individual could buy a league of public land for $5,000 in gold or silver or $1.08 per acre. Prices declined in 1883 so that the poorest land was priced at $f800 per league while the best agricultural land equaled $f1500 and forests and yerbales $fl000 per league.
22 Libro de la receptoría, 1818, ANA, SNE 2558; Cuaderno para la recaudación, 1829, ANA, SNE 1254; Libro de la receptoría, 1835, ANA, SNE 3121; Cuaderno para la recaudación, 1843, ANA, SNE 1931.
23 Paraguay, , “Arreglo del ramo de tierras de propriedad pública, 1843, no. 21,” Repertorio nacional. (Asunción, 1845).Google Scholar
24 Manuel Antonio Cannona, capital, 1841, ANA, SPT 119, no. 4. Blas Ignacio Duré, Villa del Pilar, 1850, SPT 158, no. 4. Lázaro Découd, capital (Encarnación), 1856, SPT 158, no. 13. José Antonio Zavala, capital (Catedral), 1856, SPT 483, no. 14. Tomasa Berges capital (San Roque), 1857, SPT 78, no. 13; Libro de caja del Tesorería y colectura general de la República, 1860, ANA, Sección Libros de Caja (hereafter cited as SLC).
25 Francisco Javier Cabañas, San Pedro, 1814, ANA, SPT 112, no. 3; White, Richard Alan, Para-guay’s Autonomous Revolution, 1810–1840 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1978), 94.Google Scholar
26 Pastore, , La Lucha por la tierra, 104,Google Scholar 168.
27 Cuenta que rindó de orden Señor Dictador de la República al Señor Ministro de tesorería de Hacienda, como recaudador de los arrendamientos de exidos pertenecientes a la Tesorería General del Estado, 1835, SNE 1879; e Silva, Raul de Andrada, Ensaio sobre a ditadura do Paraguai, 1814–40 (São Paulo: Coleção Museu Paulista, 1978), pp. 208 Google Scholar, 210; White, , Paraguay’s Autonomous Revolution, pp. 120.Google Scholar
28 Lista de los arrendatarios correspondiente 1858 en el partido de San Lorenzo de la Frontera, ANA, SNE 2779; Razón de los arrendatarios que ocupan tierra públicas en el partido Ysla de 1860, ANA, SNE 975; Lista de los arrendatarios en el Partido de Ypané correspondiente 1862, ANA, SNE 1660. Lista nominal de los arrendatarios de tierras públicas que ocupan los vecinos de Villa San Pedro, 8 Sept 1863, ANA, SNE 1660.
29 Pomer, León, La Guerra del Paraguay: Gran Negocio (Buenos Aires: Calden, 1968), p. 42;Google Scholar Pastore, , La Lucha por la tierra, p. 103;Google Scholar Mulhall, , Handbook 1885, p. 628.Google Scholar
30 White, , Paraguay’s Autonomous Revolution, p. 120.Google Scholar
31 Arrendatarios de tierras: Lambaré, 15 Jan. 1852, ANA, SNE 2779; Tobatí, 4 April 1853, ANA, SNE 2713; Luque, 21 April 1853, ANA, SNE 2713; San Lorenzo del Campo Grande, 4 April 1853, ANA, SNE, 2713; Acaj, April 19, 1854, ANA, SNE 2733; Pirayú, 22 January 1858, ANA, SNE 2763; Capiatá, 1 Sept. 1858; ANA, SNE 2764; Villa de Oliva, 13 Feb. 1858, ANA, SNE 2759; Ytauga 19 Jan. 1858; ANA, SNE, 2763; Quiquio, 10 Feb. 1859, ANA, SNE 2770; San Lorenzo de la Frontera, 30 March 1859, ANA, SNE 2779; Ypané, 3 Sept. 1863, ANA, SNE 2801; Unión, 2 Jan. 1863, ANA, Sección Historia (hereafter cited as SH) 385 II; San Joaquín, 2 Jan. 1864, ANA, SH 385 II. However, the issue is complicated by the fact that in most of my sample the documents indicated the amount of rent paid, but did not give the amount of land rented.
32 Arrendatarios de tierras, Lambaré 15 Jan. 1852, ANA, SNE 2779. Since calculation of farm size was based on rents, farmers in Lambaré either paid higher rents or rented larger farms. If rents in Lambaré were higher, farms would appear to have been of similar size to other districts.
33 Lista de los arrendamientos de Asunción, 30 Sept. 1859, por 1858, Colegio Seminario de San Carlos ANA, SNe 2779; Asunción, 2 Aug. 1855 por 1853 de San Roque, Asunción, ANA, SNE 2733.
34 Lista nominal de los individuales que possen terrenos del Estado sin pagar, June 6, 1853, ANA, SNE 2715.
35 A Liño equaled 1 cuerda or 83 1/3 vara; “Tablas de agricultura,” El Semanario, Nov. 14, 1863, p. 3.
36 Luis Gómez, Capital (Recoleta), 1819, ANA, SPT 406, No. 1; Francisca Escobar, Limpio, 1857, ANA, SPT, 174, no. 7.
37 Graty, Du, República del Paraguay, pp. 329–331.Google Scholar Child, , The Spanish America Republics (New York: Harper, 1891), pp. 363–365.Google Scholar Henderson to Earl of Clarendon, Asunción, 15 Jan. 1855, PRO, FO, 59/15, pp. 21–31.
38 Williams, , The Rise and Fall of the Paraguayan Republic, 92;Google Scholar Chaves, Julio C., El Supremo dictador: biografía de José Gaspar de Francia, 3rd ed. (Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nizzu, 1958), p. 272.Google Scholar Baez, Cecilio, Ensayo Histórico sobre el Dictador Francia y la dictadura en Sud América (Asunción, 1910), 82–83;Google Scholar “Boletín Agrícola,” Eco del Paraguay, May 31, 1855, 28.
39 El Semanario, 4 June 1850 to 15 August 1859; Ibid, May 1, 1863; Hadfield, William, Brazil, the River Plate and the Falkland Islands; with the Cape Horn Route to Australia (London; Longman, Frown, Green and Longmans, 1854), p. 338.Google Scholar
40 Joseph Graham to Felipe Araña, Buenos Aires, February 18, 1847, PRO, FO 6/136, enclosure of a report from Buenos Aires 23 December 1846.
41 de Vilá, Blanca Rosa Romero, “La Agricultura durante el gobierno de Doctor Francia,” Anuario, Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas Google Scholar Dr.Rodríguez de Francia, José Gaspar, 1:1 (1979), 73;Google Scholar “Resumen de importación en el mes de febrero de 1858,” El Semanario, 8 March 1858, p. 2.
42 Gordon to Earl of Aberdeen, Hampton Wick, April 29, 1943, PRO, FO, 13/202.
43 Graty, Du, República del Paraguay, 332,Google Scholar 361. One peso equals four francs 32 centavos.
44 Henderson to Earl of Clarendon, Asuncíon, 3 Feb. 1856, PRO, FO, 59/14, pp. 25–36. Lewis Bamberger to William Learned Marcy, July 21, 1857, USNA, CD; Pérez Acosta, Juan F., Carlos Antonio López; obrero máximo. Labor administrativa y constructiva (Asunción: Guarania, 1948), 71–74;Google Scholar El Semanario, 12 Feb. 1859, p. 2. Pastore, Mario, “Crisis de la hacienda pública,” pp. 174–176,Google Scholar 190–191 notes that the military required more than three-fourths of the government revenues.
45 Lucien de Brayen to Monsier Brouyn de Lhuys, Asunción, 10 Juen 1855, AAEP, CCC, Asunción, I, 40; Henderson to Earl of Clarendon, Asunción, 15 Jan. 1855, PRO FO, 59/13, pp. 21–32; Demersay, , Histoire physique, 2 Google Scholar, 84; Graty, Du, República del Paraguay, 238.Google Scholar
46 Henderson Earl of Clarendon, Asunción, 6 July 1885, PRO, FO, 59/13, p. 54; Graty, Du, República del Paraguay p. 238;Google Scholar Page, , La Plata, the Argentine Confederation and Paraguay, p. 213.Google Scholar
47 “Tablas de Agricultura, 1862,” El Semanario, Nov. 14, 1863, p. 30.
48 de Azara, Félix, Descripción e historia del Paraguay y del Río de la Plata (Buenos Aires: Editorial Bajel, 1943), 1,Google Scholar 86; Criados, Mathias Alonso, El cultivo del Café como remedio de la crisis económica del Paraguay (Montevideo, 1898), pp. 31–32.Google Scholar
49 An asumbre equals thirty-two pounds.
50 El Semanario, 14 March 1863, p. 3; Graty, Du, República del Paraguay, 326–327;Google Scholar Friedmann, Eugenio, Historia del Azucar en el Paraguay (Asunción 1966), pp. 115–118.Google Scholar St. Georges to Drouyn de Lhuys, 30 April 1853, AAEP, CCC, Buenos Aires III, 1853-1854, p. 300.
51 Silva, , Ensaio sobre a ditadura, 56.Google Scholar Famin, Cesar, “Sobre el gobierno jesuítico en el Paraguay y sobre el Dr. Francia,” Revista del Instituto Paraguayo, 9, no. 56 (1907), 136.Google Scholar
52 Correspondencia al ramo de guerra, 1850, ANA, SNE, 2695. “Report on the Production of cotton in Paraguay, Asunción, 25, Jan. 1855, PRO, FO, 59/19, pp. 41–44. Lieut. Thomas J. Page to J.C. Dobbin, Secretary of the Navy, Asunción, March 10, 1854, United States National Archives, Washington D.C. (hereafter cited as USNA), Naval Record Collection, Letters from Officers commanding expeditions (hereafter cited as RG) 45.
53 Lucien de Bryan to Drouyn de Lhuys, Asunción, June 10, 1855, AAEP, CCC, Asunción, I, p. 41. José Berges to Ludorvico Tenré, consul of Paraguay in Paris, Asunción, 6 May 1865, ANA, Colecção Visconde Rio Branco (hereafter cited as CRB), 1–22,11,1, no. 113. Berges to Tenré, Asunción, 6 Oct. 1863, ANA, CRB, 1–22,11,1 no. 201; Berges to Juan y Alfred Blythe, Asunción 21 May 1863, ANA, CRB, 1–22,11,1 no. 125. Asunción, 20 May, 1863, ANA, SNE 2801; El Semanario, 23 Jan. 1864, p. 3.
54 “Report on the Production of Cotton in Paraguay,” 25 Jan. 1858, PRO, FO, 59/19, pp. 41–44. Nicholsen to Earl of Aberdeen, Asunción, 17 May 1853, PRO, FO, 59/19. Ricardo Mullowny, Paraguay Consul in New York, to José Berges, Min. of Foreign Affairs in Paraguay, New York 2 Jan. 1863, ANA, CRB, 1–29,34.24, no 7; Encina, Belisario Ibarra, “Historia de la produción algodonera en el Paraguay, Revista del Centro de Ciencias Económicas (Asunción), 14:118 (1953), 47 Google Scholar: El Semanario, 8 Feb. 1862, p. 4; 15 Aug. 1863, p. 4; 3 Oct. 1863, p. 4; 27 Feb. 1864, p. 4.
55 Paraguayo, Algodón, El Semanario, 19 Dec. 1863, p. 3.Google Scholar
56 Whigham, , The Politics of River Trade, 133–152.Google Scholar
57 Blythe to F.S. López, London, 8 August 1857, ANA, CRB, 1–29,35,56, no. 23; Bamberger to Lewis Cass, Sec. of State, Asunción, 31 Dec. 1860, U.S. USNA, Consular Dispatches from the U.S. Consuls in Asunción, T329 (hereafter cited as CD); “Report on the Production of Cotton,” Asunción, 23 Jan. 1858, PRO, FO, 59/19, pp.41-44. Comte Alfred do Brossard to Comte Alexandre Colonna Walewski, Asunción, 14 June 1858, AAEP, CCC, vol. 1, pp. 236–238. St. Georges to Drouyn de Lhuys, Buenos Aires, April 40, 1853, AAEP, CCC, Buenos Aires, vol. 3; Roger, M.A., “Notas sobre la cultura del tobacco,” El Seminario, 16 July 1853, pp. 1–2 Google Scholar and 23 July 1853, pp. 1–3; “Manufacture of Tobacco in Paraguay,” The Merchants’ Magazine and Commercial Review, XX, no. 4 (April 1849), 453–454. Jerry W. Cooney, “Tobacco and Defense: A Dilemma of the Intendencia of Paraguay” (unpublished paper).
58 Graty, Du, República del Paraguay, p. 325–326.Google Scholar One franc equals 1.6 reales in 1860. An average production of 164 arrobas of tobacco per hectare appears too high, since Paraguayan peasant farmers produced 69 to 128 arrobas per hectare in 1942–1943, and averaged only 106 arrobas per hectare in 1979. Since tobacco exhausts the soil and Paraguay failed to modernize agriculture, production per acre most likely was greater in 1860 than in 1942, but probably not by one hundred percent. For instance, the Villa Rica area, the most important tobacco region in the nineteenth century, produced in 1942 only 73.74 arrobas per hectare. Servico técnico Interamericano de cooperación agrícola, Paraguay, , Censo de agricultura del Paraguay (Asunción, 1948), p. 155.Google Scholar Wilkie, James W. and Haber, Stephen, eds., Statistical Abstract of Latin America (Los Angeles: UCLA, 1983), pp. XXII,Google Scholar 197.
59 “Manufacture of Tobacco in Paraguay,” The Merchants’ Magazine and Commercial Review (New York), 20:4 (April 1849), 453–454.
60 Brayen to Walenski, Asunción, 1 January 1856, AAEP, CCC, Asunción, vol. I, pp. 107–108.
61 “Report on the Commerce of Paraguay for the year 1858,” Asunción, 12 Jan. 12, 1859, PRO, FO, 59/20. Graty, Du, La República del Paraguay, p. 347.Google Scholar
62 “Decretos sobre el tabaco,” El Semanario, 18 Jan. 1862, p. 2; 3 May 1856, p. 2.
63 See the following articles in El Seminario, 15 July 1853, 23 July 1853, 30 July 1853, 20 Aug 1853 and “Del Cultivo del tabaco,” Eco del Paraguay, 4 Sept. 1856, p. 306–7; 11 Sept. 1856, pp. 322–3; 9 Oct. 1856, pp. 327; 16 Oct. 1856, pp. 330–331.
64 Henderson to Earl of Clarendon, Asunción, 20 May 1856, PRO, FO, 59/14. Copias de documentos diversos, 21 Feb. 1856, ANA, SH 29, p. 77. López, Carlos Antonio, Documentos del archivo de Asunción, 10 vols. (Asunción, s.n., 19-), IX,Google Scholar Asunción, 22 March 1856, p. 2587.
65 Brayen to Walewski, Asunción, 24 May 1856, AAEP, CCC, vol. 1.
66 Laurent Cochelet to Drouyn de Lhuys, Asunción, 30 August 1863, AAEP, CCC, Asunción, vol. 2. Izarie to Antoine Edouard Thouvenel, 29 May 1862, AAEP, cec, vol. 1. Brossard to Walewski, Asunción, 14 June 1858, AAEP, CCC, Asunción, vol. 1. Copias de documentos diversos 6 March 1856, ANA, SH 29, pp. 148–150. “Report of the Commerce on Paraguay,” Asunción, 12 January 1859, PRO, FO 59/20, pp. 184–195. “Decreto sobre el tabaco,” El Semanario, 18 January 1862, p. 2.
67 Gordon to Earl of Aberdeen, Hampton Wick, 29 April 1843, PRO, FO, 13/202. Du Graty, República del Paraguay, p. 333.
68 Henderson to Earl of Clarendon, Asunción, 3 Feb. 1856, PRO, FO 59/15.
69 “Tablas de Agricultura,” El Semanario, 14 Nov. 1864, p. 3. One liño equals 83.3 varas; a cuerda is 83.3 varas squared and one acre equals 1.25 cuerdas. I have used the same number of households, 53,019 for 1862 as 1864 given the fact crop plantings were similar. For household size see Reber, , “The Demographics of Paraguay,” 302.Google Scholar
70 For the nineteenth century, Reber, Vera Blinn, “Commerce and Industry in Nineteenth Century Paraguay: the Example of Yerba Mate,” The Americas 42:1 (July 1985), 29–53 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Whigham, Thomas, La Yerba mate del Paraguay (1780–1870) (Asunción: Centro Paraguayo de Estudios Sociológicos, 1991).Google Scholar For the colonial era see Garavaglia, Juan-Carlos, “El mercado internal colonial y yerba mate: siglo XVI-XIX,” Nova Americana 4 (1981), 163–210.Google Scholar
71 Potthast-Jukeit, Barbara, “The Ass of Mare and Other Scandals: Marriage and Extramarital Relations in Nineteenth Century Paraguay,” Journal of Family History 16:3 (1991), 215–239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar examines the 1846 census and marriage and baptism records of four Paraguayan districts: Encarnación, Villa Rica, Itá, Santa Rosa. She concluded that 46 were female-headed houses; 45 nuclear families; 8 headed by single male, ibid, 229. Ganson, Barbara J., “Following their children into battle: Women at War in Paraguay, 1864–1870,” The Americas 46:3 (Jan. 1990), 335–371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar concludes that the postwar years were not distinct from the pre-war in that illegitimacy remained high and the pattern of free unions continued. Ganson argues that one-third of all households before the were were headed by women; Ibid, 341; she further notes the predominance of women as vendors in markets in capital and town, 348.
72 See Ganson, , “Following their children,” pp. 349–50 Google Scholar for significant role of women in capital and town, 348.
73 For a general study of government policies which affect size of land holdings see Glade, William P., Latin America Economies: a study of their institutional evolution (New York: American Books 1969), pp. 236–239.Google Scholar Although in depth studies on the relationship between government policies and agricultural development are rare for the nineteenth century, see, for example, Girbal de Blacha, Noemi M., Los Centros Agrícolas en la Provincia de Buenos Aires (Buenos Aires: Fundación Para la Educación, La Ciencia y La Cultura 1980).Google Scholar However, it must be emphasized that agricultural historians of South America have focused on Brazilian plantations and Argentine estancias. A recent exception is Sábato, Hilda, Agrarian Capitalism and The World Market: Buenos Aires in the Pastoral Age, 1840–1890 Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1991)Google Scholar who recognizes that farms coexisted with estancias. Sheep ranching and farming required smaller amounts of land than cattle raising.
