The New World fell before a small group of enterprising conquistadores, yet force alone could not construct an empire. In the end, ideas relegated the conquerors to subordinate positions, and organized a vast and varied aboriginal population of different historical, cultural, and political traditions under royal control.
Colin MacLachlan, 19889
The Spanish monarch, who stood at the pinnacle of a highly centralized colonial administration, held title to all land, water, and mineral rights in his realm and was ultimately responsible for filling all public offices. The king assumed responsibility for both the spiritual and temporal wellbeing of his subjects. The Fuero Real, laws dating from 1255, declared the king to be the temporal interpreter of divine will. Thus questioning royal mandates implied not only a challenge to the political order but an attack on Christian faith.10
The monarch presented his kingdom as a political and territorial division within the universal church founded by Christ himself. Mundane considerations, however, prevailed. One individual, with or without divine sanction, could not administer an empire. The king readily acknowledged interest groups, such as merchant guilds, and often granted them self-policing powers and responsibilities now associated with a modern state. Various advisors, councils, and corporate groups surrounded the king. Petitioners, who inflated their own importance in an attempt to gain a hearing, constantly besieged him.11
The king’s simple decree of divine sanction did not end political debate. In 1520, Castilian mayors, alderman, judges, professionals, craftsmen, and lesser clergymen revolted against Carlos V to prevent him from centralizing control, granting excessive privileges to foreigners, and spending money from Castile in his other realms. This movement, which he defeated, repeatedly raised demands concerning “the consent of all” and “the will of the people.” The defeat of the uprising, known as the Comunero Revolt, greatly reduced the chances of imposing effective institutional restraints on the emperor.12
To cope with the increasingly complex demands of administering the New World lands claimed by Spain, Carlos V established the Council of the Indies in 1524. The Council consisted of a president and eight councilors who oversaw the political, ecclesiastical, and judicial affairs of Spain’s New World colonies. These nine men answered only to the king.13
Along with the constraints imposed by the enormous area of the empire, poor communications, and the limited staff available, the Council’s own self-image constrained it. Members saw themselves as a body of advisors to the monarch. Had they been charged with formulating and implementing policy, as the heads of modern semi-autonomous government agencies are, their actions would have had more direction.14
Since a round-trip voyage between Spain and Veracruz required six months, day-to-day administration obviously had to be vested in officials residing in the New World. Thus the Crown divided the Spanish empire into large administrative units called viceroyalties, each headed by a viceroy. The viceroyalty of New Spain, with its seat in Mexico City, included territory stretching from Costa Rica to California, and, in addition, Florida, the Philippine Islands, Spain’s Caribbean colonies, and part of Venezuela. Throughout the colonial period, as a result of its being the seat of viceregal administration, Mexico City exercised a greater influence on Mexico than had Tenochtitlan before the Conquest.15
Given the influence of local economic interests, as well as isolation from Spain, the viceroy could carry out policy markedly at odds with royal decrees. The phrase “Obedezco pero no cumplo” (“I obey but I do not comply”) summarized this attitude. To stall on implementing a matter at odds with local interests, the viceroy could simply request clarification and postpone action for a year or more. Viceroys also engaged in semantic evasion. For example, in 1585, a royal decree unequivocally prohibited the collection of tribute from Tlaxcala. Authorities in New Spain simply reclassified the tribute as a “reconocimiento” (“recognition”) and continued to collect it. That way they could have access to Indian wealth without openly defying the king. Often the viceregal administration would yield part but not all of what the Crown demanded. As historian John Lynch commented, “Usually there emerged a workable compromise between what central authorities ideally wanted and what local conditions and pressures would realistically tolerate.”16
The king appointed judges to a judicial body known as the audiencia, which served as Mexico’s supreme court of appeals and as a consultative body. After a viceroy’s death, audiencia judges, or oidores, administered the colony until the next viceroy arrived. Before the arrival of the first viceroy in 1535, the audiencia held both administrative and judicial power.
The audiencia limited the viceroy’s actions and called him to account when necessary. In addition, the archbishop and the Mexico City municipal council were expected to prevent viceregal malfeasance. They both enjoyed the privilege of communicating independently with the king and the Council of the Indies and could report viceregal actions that countered the interests of the Crown.17
To facilitate administration, New Spain was divided into administrative entities known as gobiernos. Nueva Galicia, one of the best known and earliest of these subdivisions, encompassed the city of Guadalajara. Eventually twenty-two of these administrative units, also known as provinces or kingdoms (reinos), stretched from Costa Rica to California. A governor who served as political chief and military commander headed each province. In addition, he held judicial and civil authority and presided over the city council of the capital city. Distance and slow communications with Mexico City allowed governors to protest and delay orders from superiors with whom they disagreed.18
Districts embracing several municipalities, known either as corregimientos or alcaldias may ores, formed the next administrative layer. Such districts were under the jurisdiction, respectively, of a corregidor or an alcalde mayor—officials who formed the lowest rung of the colonial bureaucracy. These officials exercised discretionary executive and judicial powers and often engaged in the endemic corruption, bribery, and extortion that occurred at the local level. Normally such officials would serve three - to five-year terms after having been appointed or having purchased the position. Their duties included civil administration, justice, and tax and tribute collection. As with the viceroy, they also played a religious role, ensuring that Indians attended Mass and met religious obligations.19
The municipality (municipio), which usually included a head town (cabecera) and outlying villages, formed the smallest significant administrative unit. Many of the early municipalities had the same boundaries as the Aztec altepetl, with the old ceremonial center becoming the cabecera. A municipal council (cabildo) of from four to fifteen members, depending on the local population, presided over municipal governments. Conquistadores and holders of encomienda grants initially selected cabildo members. Later, landowners and merchants made such selections. However, beginning with the reign of Felipe II, who ruled Spain from 1556 to 1598, the Crown began selling these positions, which could be inherited. By the late colonial period, a self-perpetuating oligarchy manned most municipal councils.20
While most municipalities remained small, some of them evolved into cities. These cities had varying origins. Veracruz served as a port, while others, such as Leon and Celaya, initially served as garrisons to protect against Indian raids. Zacatecas and Guanajuato began as mining centers. Puebla simply provided a place where Spaniards could live. Whenever possible, Spaniards preferred to live in cities, since they equated city dwelling with civilization, social status, and security. This preference notwithstanding, urban living remained the exception, not the rule. As late as 1800, only 9 percent of Mexicans lived urban areas.21
Royal decrees mandated that newly established cities must follow a general plan. Streets crossed at right angles in a checkerboard or grid pattern. A plaza surrounded by a church and government buildings formed the center of each city. Historian Robert Ricard commented on the importance of the plaza: “A Spanish American city is a main plaza surrounded by streets and houses, rather than a group of streets and houses around a main plaza.”22
Most colonial cities, such as Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Puebla, shared a common commercial and residential pattern. Shops dominated the central plaza, and the homes of the wealthy occupied adjacent lots. A concentric ring around the wealthy housed the less affluent. On the edge of town, the homes of the poor—transient laborers, mulattos, and Indians—formed yet another ring.23
Rather than implementing a tax policy that would be judged sound by modern standards, the king and his top officials obtained revenue by auctioning positions in government to the highest bidder. Buyers expected that, through fees, bribes, tribute, and the ability to profit in business, they would recoup their investment and make a profit.24
The sale of office increased abuse, since in addition to the high costs of travel and setting up new households, office holders had to recoup the amount paid for office. Today this would be viewed as corruption. At the time, the populace regarded buying office as an investment in a revenue source that guaranteed the best men—those with a genuine stake in society—would occupy top positions. People judged officials not as honest or corrupt but by the degree to which they enriched themselves. Only flagrant excess brought condemnation.25
The Habsburg colonial administration, which lasted until 1700, was a creaking cumbersome engine that consumed great quantities of paper, energy, and cash payments. These payments— bribes and the sale of offices—were essential if the system was to function, given the lack of salaries.
The Habsburg regimes followed the dictum of letting sleeping dogs lie. They did not entertain grand visions of social transformation, being content with limited controls and limited fiscal benefit. Typically the Habsburgs relied on consensus, using repression only in a selective fashion. Loyalty to God and king undergirded governance. This loyalty was so pervasive that during the almost 200 years the Habsburgs ruled Mexico, no concerted challenge to the Crown emerged.26
World History
