NOTES

Abbreviations

Preface

1. Archivo del Congreso, Senado, Proyectos negados, 1846, V, folios 118–26 (hereafter AC); Agustín Rodríguez, Vicente Vega, Juan Dederlé, et al., HH. Senadores (Bogotá: Imprenta de Nicolás Gómez, May 5, 1846).

2. Colombia underwent several name changes during the nineteenth century: Colombia (along with the territory that is now Ecuador, Panama, and Venezuela), from 1819 until 1830; La República de la Nueva Granada, from 1830 until 1857; La Confederatión Granadina, from 1857 until 1863; Los Estados Unidos de Colombia, from 1863 until 1886; and, finally, La República de Colombia, from 1886 to the present.

3. Exceptions include the series of articles by Humberto Triana y Antorveza: “El aprendizaje en los gremios neogranadinos,” Boletín Cultural y Bibliográfico, 8:5 (1965), 735-42; “El aspecto religioso en los gremios neogranadinos,” Boletín Cultural y Bibliográfico, 9:2 (1966), 269–81; “Examenes, licencias, fianzas y elecciones artesanales,” Boletín Cultural y Bibliográfico, 9:2 (1966), 65–73; “Extranjeros y grupos étnicos en los gremios neogranadinos,” Boletín Cultural y Bibliográfico, 8:1 (1965), 24–32; and “La libertad laboral y la supresión de los gremios neogranadinos,” Boletín Cultural y Bibliográfico, 8:7 (1965), 1015–24.

4. The list of scholars drawn to examination of the Democratic Societies is extensive. Aside from those of Urrutia, representative studies include: Gustavo Vargas Martínez, Colombia 1854: Melo, los artesanos y el socialismo (La dictadura artesanal de 1854, expresión del socialismo utópico en Colombia) (Bogotá: Editorial la Oveja Negra, 1973); Enrique Gaviria Liévano, “Las Sociedades Democráticas o de artesanos en Colombia,” Correo de los Andes, No. 24 (January–February 1984), 67–76; Germán R. Mejía Pavony, “Las Sociedades Democráticas (1848–1854): Problemas historiográficos,” Universitas Humanística, 11:17 (March 1982), 145–76; Antaloli Shulgovski, “La ‘Comuna de Bogotá’ y el socialismo utópico,” América Latina (August 1985), 45–56; and Carmen Escobar Rodríguez, La revolución liberal y la protesta del artesanado (Bogotá: Editorial Suramérica, 1990).

5. Miguel Urrutia, The Development of the Colombian Labor Movement (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1969).

6. Edgar Caicedo, Historia de las luchas sindicales en Colombia (Bogotá: Ediciones CEIS, 1982), 57.

7. For discussion of historiographical tendencies, see Kenneth Paul Erickson, Patrick V. Peppe, and Hobart Spalding, Jr., “Research on the Urban Working Class and Organized Labor in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile: What Is Left to Be Done?” LARR, 9:2 (Summer 1974), 115–42; Charles Bergquist, “What Is Being Done? Some Recent Studies on the Urban Working Class and Organized Labor in Latin America,” LARR, 16:1 (1981), 203–23.

8. Judith Evans, “Results and Prospects: Some Observations on Latin American Labor Studies,” ILWCH, No. 16 (Fall 1979), 29–30.

9. Julio Godio, El movimiento obrero de América Latina, 1850–1918 (Bogotá: Ediciones Tercer Mundo, 1978), 15–16.

10. Hobart Spalding, Jr., Organized Labor in Latin America: Historical Case Studies of Workers in Dependent Societies (New York: Harper & Row, 1977).

11. Charles W. Bergquist, Labor in Latin America: Comparative Essays on Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, and Colombia (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1986), 1–14.

12. Bergquist, Labor in Latin America, 376–78.

13. George Reid Andrews, “Review Essay: Latin American Workers,” Journal of Social History, 21:2 (Winter 1987), 312. The wealth of studies can be glimpsed by various calls for studies or research reviews of the past fifteen years. See, for example, Emilia Viotti da Costa, “Experience versus Structure: New Tendencies in the History of Labor and the Working Class in Latin America—What Do We Gain? What Do We Lose?” ILWCH, No. 36 (Fall 1989), 3–24; Erickson, Peppe, and Spalding, “Research on the Urban Working Class”; Daniel James, “Dependency and Organized Labor in Latin America,” Radical History Review, 18 (Fall 1978), 155–60; Evans, “Results and Prospects”; Bergquist, “What Is Being Done?”; J. Samuel Valenzuela, “Movimientos obreros y sistemas políticos: Un análisis conceptual y tipológico,” Desarrollo Económico, 23:91 (October–December 1983), 339–68; Ronaldo Munck, “Labor Studies Renewal,” Latin American Perspectives, 13:2 (Spring 1986), 108-14; Ian Roxborough, “Issues in Labor Historiography,” LARR, 21:2 (1986), 178–88; and Peter DeShazo, “Workers, Labor Unions, and Industrial Relations in Latin America,” LARR, 23:2 (1988), 145–56.

14. E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (New York: Vintage Books, 1963); Joan Wallach Scott, The Glassworkers of Carmaux: French Craftsmen and Political Action in a Nineteenth-Century City (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974); William H. Sewell, Jr., Work & Revolution in France: The Language of Labor from the Old Regime to 1848 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980); Sean Wilentz, Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working Class, 1788–1850 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984).

15. Lyman L. Johnson, “The Racial Limits of Guild Solidarity: An Example from Colonial Buenos Aires,” Revista de Historia de América, No. 99 (January–June 1985), 7–26; Lyman L. Johnson, “The Silversmiths of Buenos Aires: A Case Study in the Failure of Corporate Social Organization,” JLAS, 8:2 (November 1976), 181–213; Lyman L. Johnson, “The Role of Apprenticeship in Colonial Buenos Aires,” Revista de Historia de América, No. 103 (January–June 1987), 7–30; Lyman L. Johnson, “Artisans,” in Cities and Society in Colonial Latin America, ed. by Louisa Schell Hoberman and Susan Migden Socolow (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1986), 227–50; Mauricio Archila, “La clase obrera colombiana (1886–1930),” in Nueva historia de Colombia, III, Relaciones internacionales, movimientos sociales (Bogotá: Planeta, 1989), 219–44; Mauricio Archila, “La memoria de los trabajadores de Medellín y Bogotá, 1910–1945,” draft in author’s possession; Gary Long, “Communists, Radical Artisans, and Workers in Colombia, 1925–1950,” draft in author’s possession; Frederick J. Shaw, “The Artisan in Mexico City (1824–1853),” in El trabajo y los trabajadores en la historia de México, ed. by Elsa Cecilia Frost, Michael C. Meyer, and Josephina Zoraida Vásquez (Mexico City: El Colegio de México, 1979), 399–418. Carlos Luis Fallas Monge, El movimiento obrero de Costa Rica, 1830–1902 (San José: Editorial Universidad Estatal a Distancia, 1983); Mario Oliva Medina, Artesanos y obreros costaricenses, 1880–1914 (San José: Editorial Costa Rica, 1985); Paul Gootenberg, “The Social Origins of Protectionism and Free Trade in Nineteenth-Century Lima,” JLAS, 14:2 (November 1982), 329–58; Peter Blanchard, The Origins of the Peruvian Labor Movement, 1883–1919 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1982); Manuel Pérez Vila, El artesanado: La formación de una clase media propriamente americana (1500–1800) (Caracas: Academia de la Historia, 1986).

Chapter One

1. Gabriel García Márquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude, trans. by Gregory Rabassa (New York: Avon Books, 1970), 195.

2. “Santa Fé de Bogotá,” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, Vol. 71 (June–November 1885), 47–58; “Up and Down Among the Andes,” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine (1857), 739–51; J. A. Bennet, “My First Trip up the Magdalena, and Life in the Heart of the Andes,” Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York, Vol. 9 (1879), 126–41.

3. Luis H. Aristizabal, “Las tres tazas: De Santafe a Bogotá, a través del cuadro de costumbres,” Boletín Cultural y Bibliográfico, 25:16 (1988), 61–79.

4. Robert L. Gilmore and John P. Harrison, “Juan Bernardo Elbers and the Introduction of Steam Navigation on the Magdalena River,” HAHR, 28:3 (November 1948), 335–59; Frank Safford, “Commerce and Enterprise in Central Colombia, 1821–1870,” Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1965. 313–15; Luis Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección en Colombia, 1810 a 1930 (Bogotá: Editorial Santafé, 1955), 216.

5. Gaspar Theodore Mollien, Viaje por la República de Colombia en 1823 (Bogotá: Banco de la República, 1944), 197; Miguel Cané, En viaje, 1881–1882 (París: Garnier Hermanos, 1883), 139; John Steuart, Bogotá in 1836–7. Being a Narrative of an expedition to the Capital of New-Granada and a residence there of eleven months (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1838), 48; William Lindsay Scruggs, The Colombian and Venezuelan Republics, 2d ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1910), 64; Alfred Hettner, La cordillera de Bogotá: resultados de viajes y estudios, trans, by Ernesto Guhl (Bogotá: Banco de la República, 1956), 68; Clímaco Calderón and Edward E. Britton, Colombia, 1893 (New York: Robert Sneider, 1894), 49.

6. Hettner, La cordillera de Bogotá, 67–68, 81, 92; Scruggs, The Colombian and Venezuelan Republics, 68; Ernst Röthlisberger, El Dorado: Estampas de viaje y cultura de la Colombia suramericana (Bogotá: Banco de la República, 1963), 66–67.

7. Peter Amato, “An Analysis of the Changing Patterns of Elite Residential Locations in Bogotá, Colombia” Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1968; Peter Amato, “Environmental Quality and Locational Behavior in a Latin American City,” Urban Affairs Quarterly, 5:1 (September 1969), 83–101. Bogotá’s spatial distribution of social classes conforms to patterns common to most Latin American cities of the day. See Alejandro Portes and John Walton, Urban Latin America: The Political Condition from Above and Below (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1976), 22–23; David J. Robinson, ed., Social Fabric and Spatial Structure in Colonial Latin America (Syracuse, NY: Department of Geography, Syracuse University, 1979).

8. Juan Friedel and Michael Jiménez, “Colombia,” in The Urban Development of Latin America, 1750–1920, ed. by Richard M. Morse (Stanford, CA: Center for Latin American Studies, Stanford University, 1971), 61–76; William Duane, A Visit to Colombia, in the Years 1822 & 1823 (Philadelphia: Thomas H. Palmer, 1826), 464–65.

9. Richard E. Boyer and Keith A. Davies, Urbanization in 19th Century Latin America: Statistics and Sources (Los Angeles: Latin American Center, 1973), 7, 9–10, 37–39, 59–61; Rodney D. Anderson, “Race and Social Stratification: A Comparison of Working-Class Spaniards, Indians, and Castas in Guadalajara, Mexico in 1821,” HAHR, 68:2 (May 1988), 215.

10. Douglas Butterworth and John K. Chance, Latin American Urbanization (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 109–10; Emilio Willems, “Social Differentiation in Colonial Brazil,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 12:1 (January 1970), 31–49; Ruben E. Reina, Parana: Social Boundaries in an Argentine City (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1973), 48–53; Andrew Hunter Whiteford, An Andean City at Mid-Century: A Traditional Urban Society (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1977), 100–243; Charles Wagley and Marvin Harris, “A Typology of Latin American Subcultures,” in The Latin American Tradition: Essays on Unity and Diversity of Latin American Culture (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), 81–117.

11. R. S. Neale’s classes include: “(1) Upper class, aristocratic, landholding, authoritarian, exclusive. (2) Middle class, industrial and commercial property-owners, senior military and professional men, aspiring to acceptance by the upper class. Deferential towards the upper class because of this and because of concern for property and achieved positions, but individuated or privatized. (3) Middling class, petit bourgeois, aspiring professional men, other literates, and artisans. Individuated or privatized like the middle class, but collectively less deferential and more concerned to remove the privileges and authority of the upper class in which, without radical changes, they cannot hope to realistically share. (4) Working class A, industrial proletariat in factory areas, workers in domestic industries, collectivist and non-deferential and wanting government intervention to protect rather than liberate them. (5) Working class B, agricultural workers, other low-paid non-factory urban labourers, domestic servants, urban poor, most working-class women whether from working-class A or B households, deferential and dependent” (R. S. Neale, Class and Ideology in the Nineteenth Century [London: R.K.P., 1972], 30–33).

12. Anthony P. Maingot, “Social Structure, Social Status, and Civil-Military Conflict in Urban Colombia, 1810–1858,” in Nineteenth-Century Cities: Essays in the New Urban History, ed. by Stephan Thernstrom and Richard Sennett (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1969), 297–355. See also, Torcuato S. Di Tella, “The Dangerous Classes in Early Nineteenth Century Mexico,” JLAS, 5:1 (May 1973), 79–105.

13. Neale, Class and Ideology, 19–20.

14. José Escorcia, Sociedad y economía en el Valle del Cauca. Tomo III. Desarrollo político, social y económico, 1800–1854 (Bogotá: Biblioteca Banco Popular, 1983), 45–75; José Escorcia, “La sociedad caleña en la primera mitad del siglo XIX,” in Santiago de Cali—450 años de historia (Cali: Alcaldía de Santiago de Cali, 1981), 101–25.

15. Of the various nineteenth-century censuses of the city, only the manuscript sheets for the barrio of Las Nieves collected during the 1851 census have escaped either loss or destruction. No nineteenth-century census of the department of Cundinamarca is available due to the 1948 destruction of these documents during the 9 de abril. The various data collected by the municipal government were lost to fire in 1903; only some death records published in a newspaper in the late 1880s remain to the investigator. Aggregate information is available for the twentieth-century censuses, but often without full descriptions of the categories of information.

Analysis of every third household of Las Nieves barrio provides the basis for the 1851 data. Deaths recorded by the mayor’s office (alcaldía) and announced in a newspaper supplied the 1888 information. Approximately 70 percent of the deaths for a fifteen-month period were analyzed. The 1893 data are drawn from a commercial directory graciously provided by Dr. J. León Helguera. It clearly overcounts commercial and professional occupations, while underrepresenting informal and low-skill activities. I used the same skill and functional categorization scheme to determine occupational strata for all data, modified by certain judgment calls. For example, I included midwives as professionals. Perhaps arbitrarily, the wide range of sewing activities by women were classified as unskilled. The classification codes are available from the author.

16. The male artisan sector of San José and Cartago, Costa Rica, ranged from 25.8 to 30.3 percent, respectively, in the 1840s. Lowell Gudmundson, Costa Rica Before Coffee: Society and Economy on the Eve of the Export Boom (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1986), 37. In 1849 Mexico City, the figure was 38 percent. Frederick J. Shaw, “The Artisan in Mexico City (1824–1853),” in El trabajo y los trabajadores en la historia de México, ed. by Elsa Cecilia Frost, Michael C. Meyer, and Josefina Zoraida Vásquez (Mexico City: El Colegio de México, 1979), 400. See also fames R. Scobie, Secondary Cities of Argentina: The Social History of Corrientes, Salta, and Mendoza, 1850–1910, completed and edited by Samuel L. Baily (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988), 187; Fernando H. Cardoso and José Luis Reyna, “Industrialization, Occupational Structure, and Social Stratification in Latin America,” in Constructive Change in Latin America, ed. by Cole Blasier (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1968), 24; Alan Middleton, “Division and Cohesion in the Working Class: Artisans and Wage Labourers in Ecuador,” JLAS, 14:1 (May 1982), 171–94; and Donald B. Keesing, “Structural Change Early in Development: Mexico’s Changing Industrial and Occupational Structure from 1895 to 1950,” Journal of Economic History, 29:4 (December 1969), 726–30.

17. Steuart, Bogotá in 1836–7, 154–57. Scobie insists that Argentine interior towns displayed only two social classes, the gente decente and the gente del pueblo, who were divided by family background. Scobie, Secondary Cities of Argentina, 140.

18. Röthlisberger, El Dorado, 93–96, 103; Hettner, La cordillera de Bogotá, 72–77, 91.

19. Francisco Silvestre, Deschpción del Reyno de Santa Fé de Bogotá escrita en 1789 por D. Francisco Silvestre, secretario que fué de virreinata y antiguo governador de la provincia de Antioquia (Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 1968), 33.

20. Cané, En viaje, 158; Hettner, La cordillera de Bogotá, 72–74, 77; Isaac F. Holton, New Granada: Twenty Months in the Andes (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1857), 162–63; Scruggs, The Colombian and Venezuela Republics, 66, 109.

21. República de Colombia, Censo de población de la República de Colombia levantado el 14 de octubre de 1918 y aprobado el 19 de septiembre de 1921 por la ley No. 8 del mismo año (Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional, 1921), 251.

22. Diccionario de la lengua Castellano (Madrid: Imprenta Francisco del Hierro, 1726), 424.

23. The Oxford English Dictionary, 13 vols. (Oxford: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1978), I, 475.

24. El Núcleo, 1858.

25. Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (New York: Russell and Russell, 1963), 122; Michael Hanagan, “Artisan and Skilled Worker: The Problem of Definition,” ILWCH, No. 12 (November 1977), 28.

26. Eric Hobsbawm, Workers: Worlds of Labor (New York: Pantheon Books, 1984); Eric Hobsbawm, “Artisans or Labour Aristocrats?” Economic History Review, 2d series, 37:3 (August 1984), 355–72.

27. For a discussion of such a skill ranking for Argentina, see Mark D. Szuchman and Eugene F. Sofer, “The State of Occupational Stratification Studies in Argentina: A Classificatory Scheme,” LARR, 11:1 (1976), 159–71. The genesis of this model is Michael B. Katz, The People of Hamilton, Canada West: Family and Class in a Mid-Nineteenth-Century City (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975), esp. 343–48. For the United States, see David Montgomery, Workers’ Control in America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979), and The Fall of the House of Labor: The Workplace, the State, and American Labor Activism, 1865–1925 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

28. Howard B. Rock, Artisans of the New Republic: The Tradesmen of New York City in the Age of Jefferson (New York: New York University Press, 1979), 9.

29. E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (New York: Vintage Books, 1963), 9–10.

30. La Alianza, October 20, 1866; January 23, February 3, 1868.

31. Francisco Robledo, “Ynstrucción de gremios en gral.Pa todos oficios aprobada pr el Exmo Sor. Virrey del Rno. Siguense a ella quantos papeles y providens se han creado en el asunto,” Revista del Archivo Nacional, Nos. 10–11 (October–November 1936), 13–37.

32. David Bushnell, The Santander Regime in Gran Colombia (Newark: University of Delaware), 130.

33. El Núcleo, 1858. The issues of the paper were not dated.

34. La Bandera Tricolor, July 16, 1826.

35. El Tiempo, May 13, 1858.

36. El Núcleo, 1858; La Alianza, December 10, 1866.

37. El Concurso Nacional, October 12, 1908.

38. Felipe Pérez, Geografía general física y política de los Estados Unidos de Colombia y geografía particular de la ciudad de Bogotá (Bogotá: Imprenta de Echeverría Hermanos, 1883), 400–404, 416–20.

39. Los Hechos, June 18, 1904.

40. El Tiempo, March 27, 1914.

41. Sean Wilentz, Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working Class (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), 107–42.

42. Diario de Cundinamarca, July 28, 1874.

43. El Tiempo, March 27, 1914.

44. La Alianza, June 14, 1867.

45. La Alianza, August 1, 1867; El Pueblo, July 13, 1867.

46. El Artesano, June 13, 1897.

47. El Correo Nacional, July 8, 1904. On the attempt to instill Taylorism into the Colombian mentality, see Alberto Mayor Mora, Etica, trabajo y productividad en Antioquia: Una interpretación sociológica sobre la influencia de la Escuela Nacional de Minas de la vida, costumbres e industrializatión regionales, 2d ed. (Bogotá: Editorial Tercer Mundo, 1985).

48. La República, October 9, 1867.

49. El Faro, January 26, 1906.

50. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class, 9–10; Peter Winn, Weavers of Revolution: The Yarur Workers and Chile’s Road to Socialism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 85.

51. La Alianza, December 10, 1866. Master craftsmen, who in early national Guadalajara, Mexico, were addressed by the honorific “Don,” might well have occupied a similar social status, although the weak colonial guild system in Colombia suggests that such distinctions may have been less important in Bogotá. See Anderson, “Race and Social Stratification: A Comparison of Working-Class Spaniards, Indians, and Castas in Guadalajara, Mexico, in 1821,” HAHR, 68:20 (May 1988), 233–44.

52. Stanley J. Stein and Barbara H. Stein, The Colonial Heritage of Latin America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970); D.C.M. Platt, “Dependency in Nineteenth Century Latin America: An Historian Objects,” LARR, 15:1 (1980), 113–30; Stanley J. Stein and Barbara H. Stein, “Comment,” LARR, 15:1 (1980), 131–46; D.C.M. Platt, “Reply,” LARR, 15:1 (1980), 147–50; Joseph L. Love, “The Origins of Dependency Analysis,” JLAS, 22:1 (1990), 143–68.

53. José Antonio Ocampo, Colombia y la economía mundial, 1830–1910 (Bogotá: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 1984); Bushnell, The Santander Regime, 78–81; William Paul McGreevey, An Economic History of Colombia, 1845–1930 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 39; Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección, 127; Luis Eduardo Nieto Arteta, Economía y cultura en la historia de Colombia (Bogotá: Editorial Viento del Pueblo, 1975), passim; Anthony McFarlane, “The Transition from Colonialism in Colombia, 1819–1875,” in Latin America, Economic Imperialism and the State: The Political Economy of the External Connection from Independence to the Present, ed. by Christopher Abel and Colin M. Lewis (London: Athlone Press, 1985), 101–24.

54. McGreevey (An Economic History of Colombia, 1–5) in particular favors this term to suggest the essential continuity of Spanish economic patterns established by the Bourbon reformers into the Republican period.

55. Bushnell, The Santander Regime, 78–81; McGreevey, An Economic History of Colombia, 39; Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección, 88–102, 127; Nieto Arteta, Economía y cultura, passim.

56. The degree to which these tariffs actually protected native crafts is disputed. Ospina Vásquez suggests that tariff rates effectively buffered native artisan production from foreign competition. Safford, however, insists that craftsmen, especially those who produced consumer goods (shoes, clothing, etc.) suffered from the impact of foreign production even under the moderate protectionist rates in the years prior to 1847. Neither scholar bases his claim on much more than informed opinion, so that resolution of this question must await more substantial data. One should note, however, that artisans expressed few complaints about tariff policies during the years prior to passage of the 1847 tariff law. Thereafter, craftsmen often reflected upon the Neo-Bourbon tariff structure with nostalgia, suggesting that they had at least felt protected. Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección, 172; Safford, “Commerce and Enterprise,” 77, 150–51.

57. McGreevey, An Economic History of Colombia, 33.

58. Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección, 76–78.

59. José Manuel Restrepo, Diario político y militar, 4 vols. (Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional, 1954), II, 275.

60. Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección, 152–53, 164; Nieto Arteta, Economía y cultura, 198; Malcolm Deas, “The Fiscal Problems of Nineteenth-Century Colombia,” JLAS, 14:2 (November 1982), 288.

61. Safford, “Commerce and Enterprise,” 17–18.

62. Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección, 91–92.

63. Safford, “Commerce and Enterprise,” 9–10, 102–5; Frank Safford, The Ideal of the Practical: Colombia’s Struggle to Form a Technical Elite (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1976), 26.

64. Steuart, Bogotá in 1836–7, 145; Duane, A Visit to Colombia, 476.

65. Mario Arango Jaramillo, Judás Tadeo Landínez y la primera bancarrota colombiana (1842) (Medellín: Ediciones Hombre Nuevo, 1981); Safford, “Commerce and Enterprise,” 68–80; Safford, The Ideal of the Practical, 71–77; Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección, 145; José Manuel Restrepo, Diario político y militar. Memorias sobre los sucesos importantes de la época para servir a la historia de la Revolución de Colombia y la Nueva Granada, desde 1819 para Adelante, 4 vols. (Bogotá: Editorial El Catolicísmo, 1963), II, 283–84.

66. Jorge Orlando Melo, “La economía neogranadina en la cuarta década del siglo XIX,” Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Medellín, 2:3 (May-December 1976), 52–63.

67. Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protectión, 161–84; Safford, “Commerce and Enterprise,” 157–72.

68. Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección, 17; Safford, “Commerce and Enterprise,” 157–66; Victoria Peralta de Ferreira, “Historia del fracaso de la ferrería de Samacá,” Universitas Humanística, No. 24 (July–December 1985), 12.

69. Safford, “Commerce and Enterprise,” 164–72; Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protectión, 167–68, 176, 182.

70. Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección, 180–84; Safford, “Commerce and Enterprise,” 179; Safford, The Ideal of the Practical, 43; Arango Jamarillo, Primera bancarrota, 188–90.

71. AC, Cámara, Informes de comisiones, 1836, VIII, 156–59r; Frank Safford, “The Emergence of Economic Liberalism in Colombia, 1821–1870,” in Guiding the Invisible Hand: Economic Liberalism and the State in Latin American History, ed. by Joseph L. Love and Nils Jacobsen (New York: Praeger, 1988), 45.

72. The confusion of multiple currencies, for example, was addressed by the abandonment of the old eight-real peso in favor of a decimal-based silver real and a peso fuerte composed of ten reals, a system that went into effect in 1853.

73. Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección, 211.

74. David Bushnell, “Two Stages of Colombian Tariff Policy: The Radical Era and Return to Protection (1861–1885),” Inter–American Economic Affairs, 9:4 (Spring 1956), 5–7.

75. Memoria de hacienda, 1859, as cited in McGreevey, An Economic History of Colombia, 86.

76. Safford, “Commerce and Enterprise,” 255.

77. Miguel Samper, La miseria en Bogotá y otros escritos (Bogotá: Biblioteca Universitaria de Cultura Colombiana, 1969), passim; Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección, 228; El Neo-Granadino, April 9, 1857.

78. La Opinión, October 14, 1863, October 12, 1864, January 4, 1865.

79. Samper, La miseria en Bogotá, 9, 11.

80. La República, October 9, 1867.

81. On numerous occasions, the slogan “Abajo las ajiotistas” was associated with artisans. Agiotistas were money lenders who purchased government bonds issued to individuals in repayment for forced loans during wartime or as compensation for other debts. In the absence of other sources of credit, the speculator played an important role in the local economy. See Deas, “Fiscal Problems,” 318–20; Safford, “Commerce and Enterprise,” 56–57.

82. David Sowell, “La Caja de Ahorros de Bogotá, 1845–65: Credit, Development, and Savings in Early National Colombia,” unpublished paper.

83. Diario de Cundinamarca, June 21, 1877.

84. Also founded in the 1870s were the Chaves Chocolate plant, a quinine laboratory, and small industries to produce candles, soap, and perfume. La América, April 9, 1874; Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección, 264–69.

85. The women earned from two to seven pesos a week, depending on their output. Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección, 310, 314; El Criterio, June 4, 1883; La Ciónica, September 21, 1898, August 12, 1899; El Diario Nacional, July 27, 1918; Las Noticias, September 23, 1889.

86. José Antonio Ocampo, “Comerciantes, artesanos y política económica en Colombia, 1830–1880,” Boletín Cultural y Bibliográfico, 27:22 (1990), 21–45.

87. Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección, 278–323; Darío Bustamante Roldán, “Efectos económicos del papel moneda durante la regeneration,” Cuadernos Colombianos, 1:4 (1974), 561–660.

88. Salomón Kalmanovitz, “Los orígenes de la industrialización en Colombia (1890–1929),” Cuadernos de Economía, 2d epoch, 5 (1983), 87.

89. Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección, 300–307, 334–44.

90. Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección, 313; La Patria, June 22, 1894; El Correo Nacional, July 8, October 17, 1904; El Yunque, May 6, 1906.

91. Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección, 303–4; El Yunque, May 6, 1906; El Telegrama, February 14, 1895.

Chapter Two

1. Eduardo Santa, Sociología política de Colombia (Bogotá: Ediciones Tercer Mundo, 1964), 37.

2. Charles W. Bergquist, “On Paradigms and the Pursuit of the Practical,” LARR, 13:2 (1978), 247–51; Frank Safford, “On Paradigms and the Pursuit of the Practical: A Response,” LARR, 13:2 (1978), 252–60. Helen Delpar, “The Liberal Record and Colombian Historiography: An Indictment in Need of Revision,” Revista Interamericana de Bibliografia, 31:4 (1981), 524–37; Frank Safford, “Acerca de las interpretaciones socioeconómicos de la política en la Colombia del siglo XIX: Variaciones sobre un tema,” Anuario Colombiano de Historia Social y de la Cultura, No. 13–14 (1985–86), 91–151.

3. Indalecio Liévano Aguirre, Rafael Núñez (Bogotá: Cromos, 1944); Gerardo Molina, Las ideas liberales en Colombia, 1849–1914, 6th ed. (Bogotá: Ediciones Tercer Mundo, 1979); Germán Colmenares, Partidos políticos y clases sociales en Colombia (Bogotá: Universidad de Los Andes, 1968).

4. Luis Eduardo Nieto Arteta, Economía y cultura en la historia de Colombia (Bogotá: Editorial Viento del Pueblo, 1975), 13, 117, 122.

5. Charles W. Bergquist, “The Political Economy of the Colombian Presidential Election of 1897,” HAHR, 56:1 (February 1976), 1–30; Charles W. Bergquist, Coffee and Conflict in Colombia, 1886–1910 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1978), 7; Charles W. Bergquist, Labor in Latin America: Comparative Essays on Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, and Colombia (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1986), 281, 286–94.

6. Helen Delpar, Red Against Blue: The Liberal Party in Colombian Politics, 1863–1899 (University: University of Alabama Press, 1981); fames William Park, Rafael Núñez and the Politics of Colombian Regionalism, 1863–1886 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1985); Robert Louis Gilmore, “Federalism in Colombia, 1810–1858,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 1949, present the strongest evidence of regionalism’s primacy in Colombian politics.

7. Frank Safford, “Bases of Political Alignment in Early Republican Spanish America,” in New Approaches to Latin American History, ed. by Richard Graham and Peter Smith (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1974), 102–3.

8. Emilia Viotti da Costa, The Brazilian Empire: Myths and Histories (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 72.

9. Jay Robert Grusin, “The Colombian Revolution of 1848,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Mexico, 1978, passim.

10. Jaime Jaramillo Uribe, El pensamiento colombiano en el siglo XIX (Bogotá: Editorial Temis Librería, 1982), 95–97; John L. Young, “University Reform in New Granada, 1820–1850,” Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1970; David Bushnell, The Santander Regime in Gran Colombia (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1954), 183–94.

11. It might be possible to make the case for the influence of “ideas” in nineteenth-century politics using these arguments, save that these issues paralleled life chances as well. See Charles A. Hale, “The Reconstruction of Nineteenth Century Politics in Spanish America: A Case for the History of Ideas,” LARR, 8:2 (1973), 53–73.

12. José María Samper, Ensayo sobre las revoluciones políticas y la condición social de las repúblicas colombianas (Hispano-Americanos) (Bogotá: Biblioteca Popular de Cultura Colombiana, n.d.), 231.

13. Jaramillo Uribe, El Pensamiento colombiano, 30–33.

14. José María Samper relates that the term gólgota came from a newspaper commentary on his correlation of socialism with the ideals of the “Martyr of Golgotha.” Thereafter, gólgota identified the more radical reformers. José María Samper, Historia de una alma, 1834 a 1881, 2 vols. (Bogotá: Biblioteca de Cultura Colombiana, 1948), I, 268–69.

15. The classic account of this process is Samper’s Historia de una alma. For Núñez, see Helen Delpar, “Renegade or Regenerator? Rafael Núñez as Seen by Colombian Historians,” Revista Intelamericana de Bibliografía, 35:1 (1985), 25–39.

16. Daniel Pécaut, Orden y violencia: Colombia, 1930–1954, 2 vols. (Bogotá: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 1987), I, 20; Bergquist, Coffee and Conflict, 95–99.

17. Suffrage rights were granted by the constitution of 1832 to males over the age of twenty-one (or younger, if married) who did not earn their subsistence as unskilled manual laborers or domestic servants. Criminals and the mentally insane were also barred from voting, as were those individuals who were in default on debts to the nation. William Marion Gibson, The Constitutions of Colombia (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1948), 120; La Ciónica Semanal, April 13, 1832.

18. Ambrosio López, El desengaño o confidencias de Ambrosio López, primer director de la Sociedad de Artesanos de Bogotá, denominada hoi “Sociedad Democrática” escrito para conocimiento de sus consocios (Bogotá: Imprenta de Espinosa, por Isidore García Ramírez, 1851), 11–13; Hugo Latorre Cabal, Mi novela: Apuntes autobiogiáficos de Alfonso López (Bogotá: Ediciones Mito, 1961), passim; J. León Helguera and Robert H. Davis, eds., Archivo epistolar del General Mosquera: Correspondencia con el General Ramón Espina, 1835–1866 (Bogotá: Editorial Kelly, 1966), 263.

19. See Sean Wilentz, Chants Democratic: New York City and The Rise of the American Working Class, 1788–1850 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984); Foster Rhea Dulles and Melvyn Dubofsky, Labor in America: A History, 4th ed. (Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson, 1986), 21–69.

20. Bushnell, The Santander Regime; David Bushnell, “The Last Dictatorship: Betrayal or Consummation?” HAHR, 63:1 (February 1983), 65–105.

21. Gibson, The Constitutions of Colombia, 35–66, 109–51; Gilmore, “Federalism in Colombia,” 139–41.

22. Thomas F. McGann, “The Assassination of Sucre and Its Significance in Colombian History, 1828–1848,” HAHR, 30:3 (August 1950), 269–89.

23. José Manuel Restrepo, Diario político y militar. Memorias sobre los sucesos importantes de la época para servir la historia de la Revolución de Colombia y de la Nueva Granada, desde 1819 para Adelante, 4 vols. (Bogotá: Emprenta Nacional, 1954), II, 228; Gilmore, “Federalism in Colombia,” 138–39. Nieto Arteta sees in these camps the “conservative liberalism” of Santander as opposed to the “doctrinaire liberalism” of Azuero that would in the 1850s divide draconiano Liberals, including Lorenzo María Lleras and gólgota Liberals such as Manuel Murillo Toro. See his Economía y cultura, 83, 180.

24. Ignacio Morales served as the Society’s director, sharing seats on its Executive Council with representatives from the Archbishopric, four religious orders, Pedro Herrera Espada, Juan Madiedo, and José Felix Merizalde, and Vice-Director Antonio Herrán. Ignacio Morales, Antonio Herrán, Felipe Bernal, et al., Invitación que hace la Sociedad Católica de Bogotá a los fieles de la América (Bogotá, May 10, 1838).

25. El Investigador Católico, March 25, 1838.

26. El Investigador Católico, August 1, October 15, 1838; Morales, Invitación-, José Restrepo Posada, “La Sociedad Católica de Bogotá—1838,” Boletín de Historia y Antiqüedades, 43:499/500 (May–June 1956), 310–21.

27. El Investigador Católico, October 15, 1838.

28. La Bandera Nacional, May 27, 1838. For their part, the editors of El Investigador Católico claimed that the Catholic Societies represented a genuine outpouring of support for the church; progressives countered that members of the organization had been forced into membership by clerical pressures. El Investigador Católico, October 15, 1838.

29. La Bandera Nacional, June 3, 17, 1838.

30. El Argos, June 24, 1838.

31. El Argos, July 1, 1838.

32. El Labrador i Artesano, September 16, 1838, p. 2.

33. El Labrador i Artesano, September 16, 1838. Membership lists are found in El Labrador i Artesano, October 7, 14, 1838, and January 20, 1839. Progressives urged their counterparts in other regions to form organizations modeled after that of Bogotá. Lleras wrote that “instruction of the masses is the most essential guarantee of popular governments.” Lleras insisted that the creation of like-minded societies would raise the level of the inferior classes and would help make social classes more equal. Progressives founded similar groups in Villa de Leiva, Tunja, Gachetá, Santa Marta, Cucutá, Soatá, La Mesa, and Santa Rosa de Viterbo.

34. El Labrador i Artesano, November 4, 1838.

35. El Labrador i Artesano, December 8, 1838.

36. El Labrador i Artesano, October 14, 21, 28, November 4, 18, 25, December 8, 16, 1838.

37. El Labrador i Artesano, September 23, October 28, December 16, 23, 1838; January 13, 1839.

38. El Amigo del Pueblo, September 16, 1838.

39. AC, Senado, peticiones, 1839, XI, folios 79–86r; Bonifacio Quijano, Ramón Torres, Gaspar Jiménez, et al., H. H. senadores i representantes (Bogotá: Impreso por J. A. Cualla, April 16, 1839).

40. Gilmore observes that santanderistas began to employ federalist rhetoric precisely when they lost control of the administration in 1837. See his “Federalism in Colombia,” 166–67.

41. Gibson, The Constitutions of Colombia, 145; Constitucional de Cundinamarca, June 10, 1832; El Día, July 17, 1842.

42. El Boletín Liberal, October 13, 1840; Un Albañil, Artesanos laboriosos de Bogotá (Bogotá: Imp. por Juan Vanegas, 1840).

43. Joseph León Helguera, “The First Mosquera Administration in New Granada,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, 1958, 54–72.

44. Young, “University Reform,” 37–38, 78, 106–11; Gilmore, “Federalism in Colombia,” 187–88.

45. Helguera, “The First Mosquera Administration,” 34.

46. Ibid., 37–38; David Bushnell, “Elecciones presidenciales colombianas, 1825–1856,” in Compendio de estadísticas históricas de Colombia, ed. by Miguel Urrutia Montoya and Mario Arrubla (Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 1970), 249–57.

47. Helguera, “The First Mosquera Administration,” 247–48; Frank Safford, “Commerce and Enterprise in Central Colombia, 1821–1870,” Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1965, 115.

48. Helguera, “The First Mosquera Administration,” 326; Aníbal Galindo, Historia económica i estadística de la hacienda nacional desde la colonia hasta nuestros días (Bogotá: Imprenta de Nicolás Pontón i Compañía, 1874), 56–60.

49. Manuel María Madiedo, Ideas fundamentales de los partidos políticos de la Nueva Granada, 3d ed. (Bogotá: Editorial Incunables, 1985), 31–32.

50. AC, Senado, Proyectos Negados, 1846, V, folios 118–26. The petition was also published as a handout. See Agustín Rodríguez, Vicente Vega, Juan Dederlé, et al., HH. senadores (Bogotá: Imprenta de Nicolás Gómez, May 5, 1846); AC, Cámara, Informes de Comisiones, 1847, X, folios 229–241r.

51. Signers who had, or would, play a role in artisan politics include: Agustín Rodríguez, José María Vega (cobbler), Francisco Londoño, Hilario Novoa, Narcisco Garai, and Rafael Tapias (carpenter). Many signers had been members of the Democratic-Republican Society of Artisans and Laborers or had signed the “books” petition of 1839. David Sowell, “’La teoría i la realidad’: The Democratic Society of Artisans of Bogotá, 1847–1854,” HAHR, 67:4 (November 1987), 616.

52. Galindo, Historia económica, 60–61; CN, XII, 214–62; Luis Ospina Vásquez, Industria i protección en Colombia, 1810 a 1930 (Bogotá: Editorial Santafé, 1955), 208–14.

53. The Society selected Rodríguez as its first director in early November; Cayetano Leiva was named vice-director and Martín Plata was appointed secretary. Agustín Rodríguez, Al director i miembros de la Sociedad Democrática (Bogotá: n.p., 1849), 1, 2; Sociedad de Artesanos, Reglamento para su réjimen interior i económico (Bogotá: Imprenta de Nicolás Gómez, 1847), 16; Salvador Camacho Roldán, Memorias, 2 vols. (Bogotá: Biblioteca Popular de Cultura Colombiana, 1946), I, 106-7; Latorre, Mi novela, 26. Members of the board included José María Solano, Francisco Torres Hinestrosa, Francisco Londoño, Pedro Aguilar, Rafael Lasso, Ambrosio López, Bartolemé Andrade, Antonio Chaves, Camilo Cárdenas, Dr. Evanjelista Durán, José Benito Mirando, José María Vega, Francisco Garzón, Gregorio Lugo, Hilario Novoa, Francisco Vásquez Guevara (tailor), and Rudesino Zuñer (tailor).

54. Sociedad de Artesanos, Reglamento, 1.

55. Reglamento de la Sociedad de Artesanos, Bogotá, 1848, as cited by Jaime Jaramillo Uribe, “Las Sociedades Democráticas de Artesanos y la coyuntura política y social colombiana de 1848,” in La personalidad histórica de Colombia y otros ensayos (Bogotá: Editorial Andes, 1977), 205.

56. Sociedad de Artesanos, Reglamento.

57. El Clamor de la Verdad, November 14, 1847.

58. El Día, December 11, 1847.

59. El Clamor de la Verdad, December 26, 1847.

60. Ibid.

61. Rodríquez, Al director, 3; El Aviso, October 8, 1848.

62. Grusin, “Revolution of 1848,” 43–49.

63. Gilmore, “Federalism in Colombia,” 179.

64. Ibid., 182.

65. Ambrosio López issued many of the invitations. López, El desengaño, 1–5.

66. For example, see Jaramillo Uribe, “La influencia de los románticos franceses y de la revolución de 1848 en el pensamiento político colombiano del siglo XIX,” in La personalidad histórica de Colombia y otros ensayos (Bogotá: Editorial Andes, 1977), 181–201.

67. Gilmore, “Federalism in Colombia,” 213; Robert Louis Gilmore, “Nueva Granada’s Socialist Mirage,” HAHR, 36:2 (May 1956), 190–210. The language of the times has plagued an accurate reading of the society.

68. Latorre, Mi novela, 72.

69. La América, June 4, 1848.

70. Ibid.

71. El Aviso, June 18, 1848. A list of presidential electors favored by the organization included the names of the leading liberals of the capital, as well as numerous artisans. Artisans proposed from the barrio of Catedral included Martín Plata, José María Vergara Tenorio, Evanjelista Durán, and Rudecindo Zuñer; from San Victorino, Carlos Martín, Francisco Londoño, Ambrosio López, and Francisco Torres Hinestrosa; and from the barrio of Las Nieves, Pedro A. Castillo and Ramón Groot.

72. El Día, April 8, 22, 29, May 6, 13, 24, June 7, 1848.

73. A los artesanos de Bogotá (Bogotá: n.p., n.d.).

74. El Día, May 28, 1848.

75. La América, June 18, 25, 1848.

76. El Nacional, June 11, 1848.

77. Bushnell, “Elecciones presidenciales colombianas,” 258–59, 265; El Nacional, June 11, 1848; El Día, June 28, July 1, and July 19, 1848. Twenty-nine of Gori’s votes came from electors in the parochial districts of Catedral, San Victorino, and Santa Barbara, while it appears that López won the nine votes from Las Nieves. A curious change in the first and final electoral counts merits mention. In the first announcement, Agustín Rodríguez, on the conservative list, and Jenaro Ruiz, a progressive elector, both artisans, were named as winning electors. Their names were absent from the final list; this happened to only one other of the thirty-one electors from Bogotá. See El Día, June 28, July 29, 1848.

78. The Society also participated in local politics. In the December 1848 election for a new cabildo, 69 progressives were selected out of a total of 166 municipal electors. Five members of the Society were chosen: Ambrosio López, Cayetano Leiva, Juan Evanjelista Durán, Francisco Torres Hinestrosa, and Francisco Vásquez. Conservatives assessed these elections, which were quite heated, as proof of the progressives’ unpopularity among the citizens, as they were unable to obtain a majority. See El Nacional, December 25, 1849.

79. Ibid.

80. El Aviso, January 11, 1849.

81. El Patriota Impartial, March 1, 1850. It is difficult to determine who led the preparations for the elections. Both Ambrosio López and Emeterio Heredia later claimed responsibility; others, however, contend that the locksmith Miguel León directed the Society’s plans; still others believe that young Liberals were in charge of its maneuvers. López, El desengaño, 23; Ambrosio López, El triunfo sobre la serpiente roja, cuyo asunto es del dominio de la nación (Bogotá: Editorial Espinosa, 1851), 10; Emeterio Heredia, Contestación al cuaderno titulado “El desengaño o confidencias de Ambrosio López etc.” por El Presidente que fue de la Sociedad de Artesanos El 7 de Marzo de 1849 (Bogotá: Imprenta de Núcleo Liberal, 1851), 41–45; José Manuel Restrepo, Historia de la Nueva Granada, 2 vols. (Bogotá: Editorial El Catolicismo, 1963), II, 102; Angel Cuervo and Rufino José Cuervo, Vida de Rufino Cuervo y noticias de su época, 2 vols. (Bogotá: Biblioteca Popular de Cultura Colombiana, Prensas de la Biblioteca Nacional, 1946), II, 126–28; La Civilización, December 27, 1849.

82. La Civilizatión, January 10, 1850; Restrepo, Historia de la Nueva Granada, II, 102.

83. Cuervo and Cuervo, Vida de Rufino Cuervo, 127.

84. Latorre, Mi novela, 24; Isaac F. Holton, New Granada: Twenty Months in the Andes (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1857), 521.

85. José María Cordovez Moure, Reminiscencias de Santa Fé de Bogotá, 9 vols. (Bogotá: Imprenta de la Cruz, 1910), III, 343-46.

86. La Gaceta Oficial, May 17, 1849; El Neo-Granadino, March 10, 1849; Restrepo, Historia de la Nueva Granada, II, 103-6; Jaime Duarte French, Florentino González: Razón y siniazón de una lucha política (Bogotá: Banco de la República, 1971), 425.

87. El Aviso, March 8, 1849.

88. La Sociedad de Artesanos de Bogotá a la nación (Bogotá: Imp. de Sanchez y Compañía, March 8, 1849). The Society’s meager treasury had been drained by the election efforts. Fortunately, as an expression of gratitude for the artisans, several wealthy “patriots” decided to sponsor a civic dinner in honor of López to replenish its coffers. It was held on March 25, 1849, the day of López’s return to the capital, and earned 650 pesos. A letter circulated to various liberals requesting support netted another 89 pesos. These monies, after expenses were paid, left the Society with a treasury balance of 805 pesos (Rodríguez, Al director, 4, 5).

89. Neither political orientation was sufficiently cohesive or precise in its ideology to warrant the title of party until 1849. After the election of that year, both groups clarified their platforms and mutual antagonisms so as to justify the label of parties. Therefore, both Liberals and Conservatives will be capitalized when referring to individuals aligned with one or the other group, and lowercased in reference to the non-partisan use of the word.

90. Correspondence from the Societies published in La Gaceta Oficial was directed to, and responded to by, Zaldúa, although the precise nature of the relationship has yet to be determined. Between August 1849 and February 1850, the Society was referred to as both the Society of Artisans and the Democratic Society of Artisans. It is not clear when the name change occurred, or at whose initiative. After February 1850, the name Democratic Society predominated.

91. El Sentimiento Democrático, May 3, June 14, 1849; Reseña histórica de los principales acontecimientos políticos de la ciudad de Cali, desde el año de 1848 hasta el de 1855 inclusivo (Bogotá: Imprenta de Echeverría Hermanos, 1856), 14, 27.

92. José Escorcia, Sociedad y economía en el Valle del Cauca, Vol. III. Desarrolla político, social y económico, 1800–1854 (Bogotá Biblioteca Banco Popular, 1983), 61, 121; J. León Helguera, “Antecedentes sociales de la revolución de 1851 en el sur de Colombia, 1848–1849,” Anuario Colombiano de Historia Social y de la Cultura, No. 5 (1970), 62.

93. El Sentimiento Democrático, May 3, June 14, 1849; Reseña histórica, 14, 27–28; Helguera, “Antecedentes sociales,” 62; Escorcia, Desarollo político, 121.

94. Reseña histórica, 27–30; Gustavo Arboleda, Historia contemporánea de Colombia desde la disolución de la antigua república de ese nombre hasta la época presente, 6 vols. (Bogotá: Casa Editorial de Arboleda y Valencia, 1918–35), III, 282.

95. Reseña histórica, 28–32; El Sentimiento Democrático, December 20, 1849; Helguera, “Antecedentes sociales,” 59; Escorcia, Desarrollo político, 107. The rancor between the two organizations can be followed in the pages of El Ariete and El Sentimiento Democrático during the latter half of 1849 and the first months of 1850.

96. El Sur-Americano, January 19, 1850.

97. El Porvenir, September 15, 1849.

98. Some confusion exists as to the precise date of the Popular Society’s foundation. Its newspaper, El Amigo de los Artesanos, cited its first meeting as having taken place on December 10, a second on December 18 (with four-hundred present), and a third on December 21 (seven-hundred present). Other sources suggest that its first meetings had taken place in 1848, and that it was reinstalled on December 17, 1849. El Amigo de los Artesanos, December 21, 28, 1849; El Día, December 26, 1849.

99. El Día, June 26, 1845; Reglamento de la Sociedad de Artistas (Bogotá, 1891); José Joaquín Borda, Historia de la Compañía de Jesús en la Nueva Granada, 2 vols. (Poissy: Imprenta de S. Lejay et Çe., 1872), II, 171–72, 195–99.

100. Camacho Roldán, Memorias, 107–9.

101. El Día, December 26, 1849.

102. El Amigo de los Artesanos, December 28, 1849.

103. El Día, December 26, 1848; Reglamento oigánico de la Sociedad Popular de instiucción mútua i fraternidad Cristiana (Bogotá: Imprenta de El Día, 1849), 1–4.

104. El Día, December 26, 1849, p. 1.

105. El Día, March 23, 1850.

106. La Civilización, January 17, 1850; El Día, January 19, 1850; El 7 de Marzo, January 20, 1850; Restrepo, Historia de la Nueva Granada, 137.

107. El 7 de Marzo, January 20, 1850; El Cañón, January 17, 1850.

108. El Día, January 19, 1850.

109. El Día, January 19, 1850; El 7 de Marzo, January 20, 1850; El Cañón, January 17, 1850; La Civilización, January 17, 1850; Arboleda, Historia contemporánea, III, 39; Restrepo, Historia de la Nueva Granada, II, 136. Francisco Londoño headed the commission, which also included Agustín Rodríguez, Dr. Carlos Martín, Miguel León, José María Samper, Enrique Parra, Carlos Sáenz, Bartolomé Ibarra, Raimundo Russi, Francisco Vázquez, and Germán G. Piñares. La Civilización said that the group also asked for the breakup of the Popular Society. El 7 de Marzo, December 23, 1849, favors that idea.

110. Restrepo, Historia de la Nueva Granada, II, 136.

111. Arboleda, Historia contemporánea, 97; El Neo-Granadino, January 25, 1850. Somewhat later, a moderate paper reminded all artisans that they were brothers and noted that the political fighting only created dissension within the artisan class. El Patriota Imparcial, March 15, 1850.

112. El Día, April 17, 1850.

113. El Día, February 13, 16, 1850; La Civilización, May 24, 27, 1850; Simón José Cárdenas, El juicio de imprenta celebrado el día 13 de mayo de 1850 promovido por Camilo Rodríguez contra el infrascrito (Bogotá: Imprenta del “El día” por J. Azarza, May 14, 1850).

114. El Cernícalo, June 10, 1850.

115. La Gaceta Oficial, March 13, 1851; El Neo-Granadino, March 14, 1851.

116. El Neo-Granadino, May 15, 1851; La Civilización, May 15, 1851.

117. Some of the tensions caused by the war are visible in Miguel León, Señor jefe político Doctor Eustaquio Alvárez (Bogotá, August 31, 1851); La Reforma, September 7, 1851.

118. Reseña histórica, 31, 32, 36–39.

119. La Gaceta Oficial, May 2, 1850.

120. El Baile, November 24, 1850; El Día, December 21, 1850; La Reforma, August 24, 1851; El Neo-Granadino, December 12, 1851.

Chapter Three

1. El Núcleo, 1858.

2. David Bushnell and Neill Macaulay, The Emergence of Latin America in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 209–20; Frank Safford, “The Emergence of Economic Liberalism in Colombia,” in Guiding the Invisible Hand: Economic Liberalism and the State in Latin American History, ed. by Joseph L. Love and Nils Jacobsen (New York: Praeger, 1988), 35–61; Malcolm Deas, “Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador: The First Half-Century of Independence,” in The Cambridge History of Latin America, Vol. III. From Independence to c. 1870, ed. by Leslie Bethell (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 507–38; Luis Eduardo Nieto Arteta, Economía y cultura en la historia de Colombia (Bogotá: Editorial Viento del Pueblo, 1975), passim; Germán Colmenares, Partidos políticos y clases sociales en Colombia (Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes, 1968).

3. Bushnell and Macaulay, The Emergence of Latin America, 33–37; Leopoldo Zea, The Latin American Mind, trans. by James H. Abbot and Lowell Dunham (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963), 51–52; E. Bradford Burns, The Poverty of Progress: Latin America in the Nineteenth Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), 8; Charles A. Hale, Mexican Liberalism in the Age of Mora, 1821–1853 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968).

4. Emilia Viotti da Costa, The Brazilian Empire: Myths and Histories (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 53–55; Frank Safford, “Social Aspects of Politics in Nineteenth-Century Spanish America: New Granada, 1825–1850,” Journal of Social History, 5:2 (Spring 1972), 344–70; Frank Safford, “Bases of Political Alignment in Early Republican Spanish America,” in New Approaches to Latin American History, ed. by Richard Graham and Peter Smith (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1974), 71–109; Frank Safford, “Politics, Ideology and Society in Post-Independence Spanish America,” in The Cambridge History of Latin America, Vol. III. From Independence to c. 1870, ed. by Leslie Bethell (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 350; Alan Knight, The Mexican Revolution, Vol. I. Porfirians, Liberals, and Peasants (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 68–69.

5. Anthony McFarlane, “The Transition from Colonialism in Colombia, 1819–1875,” in Latin America, Economic Imperialism and the State: The Political Economy of the External Connection from Independence to the Present, ed. by Christopher Abel and Colin M. Lewis (London: Athlone Press, 1985), 107; Robert Louis Gilmore, “Federalism in Colombia, 1810–1858,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, 1949, 104–10, 116, 121, 182, 225. Whether the period of Liberal Reform began with Mosquera causes some debate. Nieto Arteta, Economía y cultura, and Jay Robert Grusin, “The Colombian Revolution of 1848,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Mexico, 1978, both contend that it began with the Generation of 1849, after the election of José Hilario López. Both insist that the period was revolutionary, one that was little influenced by foreign events or ideas. Bushnell’s recent survey of the reform period accepts this traditional date, even while his discussion of reforms begins with the Mosquera presidency. See Bushnell and Macaulay, The Emergence of Latin America, 209. J. León Helguera argues for the innovative nature of Mosquera’s presidency in “The First Mosquera Administration in New Granada,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, 1958.

6. William Marion Gibson, The Constitutions of Colombia (Durham, NC: Duke University Press), 191–214; Antonio Pombo and José Joaquín Guerra, Constituciones de Colombia: Recopiliadas y precedidas de una breve reseña histórica, 4 vols. (Bogotá: Prensas del Ministerio de Educación Nacional, 1951), IV, 5–27; Alirio Gómez Picón, El golpe militar del 17 de abril de 1854: La dictadura de José María Melo, el enigma de Obando, los secretos de la historia (Bogotá: Editorial Kelly, 1972), 115–18; La Discusión, May 21, 1853; Gilmore, “Federalism in Colombia,” 208–213.

7. Gilmore, “Federalism in Colombia,” 212.

8. Gilmore, “Federalism in Colombia,” 325–31. The other states were Bolívar, Boyacá, Cauca, Cundinamarca, Magdalena, and Santander.

9. Gilmore, “Federalism in Colombia,” provides an outstanding examination of this process, with 400–401 describing the constitution itself.

10. Antonio Pérez Aguirre, 25 años de historia colombiana: 1853 a 1878; del centralismo a la federación (Bogotá: Editorial Sucre, 1959), 150–59; Jorge Villegas, Colombia: Enfrentamiento iglesia-estado, 1819–1887 (Bogotá: La Carreta, 1981), 57; Fernando Díaz Díaz, “Estado, iglesia, y desamortización,” in Manual de historia de Colombia, 3 vols., 2d ed. (Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano de Cultura, 1982), II, 413–66. See the Boletín del Credito Nacional for reports of the commission charged with sale of church lands.

11. Tolima was separated from Cundinamarca to form the ninth state.

12. Helen Delpar, “Colombian Liberalism and the Roman Catholic Church, 1863–1886,” Journal of Church and State, 22:2 (Spring 1980), 274–76.

13. Helen Delpar, Red Against Blue: The Liberal Party in Colombian Politics (University: University of Alabama Press, 1981), 11–13; Gibson, The Constitutions of Colombia, 264–71; Pérez Aguirre, 25 años, 188–92, 205–26; Salvador Camacho Roldán, Memorias, 2 vols. (Bogotá: Biblioteca Popular de Cultura Colombiana, 1946), I, 283–84.

14. Safford, “Economic Liberalism,” 45.

15. AC, Cámara, Informes de comisiones, 1836, VIII, 156–59r.

16. El Día, July 17, 1843. The same set of complaints were voiced in the 1831 petition. See Safford, “Economic Liberalism,” 45.

17. El Día, July 17, 1842.

18. La Alianza, April 13, 1867; La Nación, December 17, 1886, January 11, 1887; Diario de Cundinamarca, June 9, 1875.

19. AC, Cámara, proyectos de leyes negados, 1850, X, folios 28–31.

20. Saturnino González, Antonio Cárdenas V., José L. Camacho, et al., Representación al Congreso Nacional (Bogotá: Impreso por Manuel J. Barrera, 1868); El Bien Público, December 5, 1870; Diario de Cundinamarca, March 15, 25, 1872; Frank Safford, The Ideal of the Practical: Colombia’s Struggle to Form a Technical Elite (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1976), 203–4.

21. AC, Senado, Proyectos Negados, 1846, V, folios 118–26.

22. Agustin Rodríguez, Vicente Vega, Juan Dederlé, et al. H.H. senadores (Bogotá: Imprenta de Nicolás Gómez, May 5, 1846), 4.

23. Thirty-four artisans from Cartagena petitioned the 1849 congress in vain to increase tariffs on imported articles that were produced domestically, to establish schools to train artisans, and to examine the competence of shop owners so that internal quality could be improved. A similar petition was sent to the 1850 congress from about 180 Cartagena artisans. This request further asked for the free importation of machinery so that production methods could be improved. AC, Cámara, Proyectos de leyes negados, 1850, X, folios 43–44r, 45–49r.

24. Ibid., 28–31.

25. Diario de Debates, June 5, 15, 19, 20, 26, 1850.

26. Diario de Debates, June 5, 1850; AC, Cámara, Proyecto de leyes negados, 1850, X, folios 32–40.

27. AC, Cámara, Informes de Comisiones, 1851, VI, folios 464–73r.

28. José María Samper’s attempts to influence the Society are seen in the pages of El Demócrata in mid-1850.

29. El Demócrata, May 15, 19, 26, June 2, 9, 16, 1850 (quote is from June 9, p. 2); El Estandarte del Pueblo, July 7, 14, 1850. Murillo denied that he favored González, despite their apparent ideological harmony. El Neo-Granadino, July 12, 1850.

30. El Estandarte del Pueblo, July 14, 1850.

31. At the meeting in which the tariff petition was prepared, Samper attempted to convince the craftsmen of the “unscientific” character of the appeal. Samper was shouted down, and left the organization, never to return. José María Samper, Historia de una alma, 1834 a 1881, 2 vols. (Bo gotá: Biblioteca de Cultura Colombiana, 1969), I, 249–51.

32. El Día, October 10, 1850. Orlando Fals Borda described these student members of the elite as trying to disassociate themselves from their elders of the established order. The socialist label was thus adopted as a gesture of protest; very few of the measures that Bogotá’s “socialists” favored can be seen as socialist in any strict sense. See Orlando Fals Borda, Subversion and Social Change in Colombia, trans. by Jacqueline D. Skiles (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), 83.

33. Jaime Duarte French, Florentino González: Razon y sinrazón de una lucha política (Bogotá: Banco de la República, 1971), 454.

34. El Día, September 7, 1850. See also La Civilización, May 1, 1850.

35. Ambrosio López, El desengaño o confidencias de Ambrosio López, primer director de la Sociedad de Artesanos de Bogotá, denominada hoi “Sociedad Democrática” escrito para conocimiento de sus consocios (Bogotá: Imprenta de Espinosa, por Isodoro García Ramírez, 1851), 1–5, 17, 20, 40–41.

36. Ibid., 19, 30–35, 41, 84.

37. Ibid., 42.

38. La Gaceta Oficial, June 7, 1851.

39. Emeterio Heredia, Contestación al cuaderno titulado “El desengaño o confiencias de Ambrosio López etc.” por El Presidente que fue de la Sociedad El 7 de Marzo 1849 (Bogotá: Imprenta de Núcleo Liberal, 1851), 9, 10, 13, 16, 54.

40. Ambrosio López, El triunfo sobre la serpiente roja, cujo asunto es el dominio de la nación (Bogotá: Editorial Espinosa, 1851), 8, 14–16, 19–21.

41. Readmitted to Colombia in 1843 after a seventy-six-year absence, the Jesuits were central to the struggle for control of social policies. Conservatives such as Ospina regarded them as a positive force in the creation of a moral society, whereas Liberals and many moderate Conservatives thought that the Jesuits were antithetical to a republic and demanded their expulsion. This had nearly been accomplished by the 1846 congress. Grusin, “The Colombian Revolution of 1848,” 199.

42. El Día, May 1, 1850. See Diálogo entre un artesano i un campesino sobre los Jesuítas (Bogotá: n.p., 1850), for an example of the Liberal propaganda on the Jesuit question.

43. Humberto Triana y Antorveza, “El aspecto religioso en los gremios neogranadinos,” Boletín Cultural y Bibliográfico, 8:5 (1965), 277. Praise for this Liberal victory came from Democratic Societies and others throughout the country. See, for example, La Gaceta Oficial, July 4, 11, 1850. Conservatives, on the other hand, lamented it as further evidence of the decay of society since the 7 de marzo. El Día and La Civilización were closed for one month by López in order to calm Conservative emotions; he also armed Democrats in case that move did not prove successful. Moderate opinions, expressed in El Patriota Imparcial, which claimed to be neither friend nor foe of the Jesuits, appealed for calm, claiming that the Jesuit question had been manipulated for partisan objectives, with a terribly divisive effect upon the country. In reality the proper role of the Jesuits was a social one, and not the political problem as claimed by Liberals or a question of religion as claimed by Conservatives according to the paper’s editors. El Patriota Imparcial, June 15, 1850; José Manuel Restrepo, Historia de la Nueva Granada, 2 vols. (Bogotá: Editorial El Catolicismo, 1963), II, 152; Angel Cuervo and José Rufino Cuervo, Vida de Rufino Cuervo y noticias de su época, 2 vols. (Bogotá: Biblioteca Popular de Cultura Colombiana, Prensas de la Biblioteca Nacional, 1946), II, 152.

44. Cruz Ballesteros, La teoría i la realidad (Bogotá: Echeverría Hermanos, December 17, 1851).

45. El Pasatiempo, January 24, 1852; Miguel León, Satisfacción, que da el que escribe, al Sr. M. Murillo Secretario de Hacienda (Bogotá: n.p., January 19, 1852).

46. Restrepo, Historia de la Nueva Granada, 180–82. See also Los Principios, an Obandista newspaper.

47. The Democratic Society worked hard for Obando’s election, helping him to win 28 of the capital’s 39 electors. Emeterio Heredia was not only an Obando elector, but also served as president of the asemblea electoral. In the nation, Obando received 1,548 electoral votes to Herrera’s 329; 131 votes went to other candidates or were blank. El Pasatiempo, June 9, 1852; Los Principios, June 30, 1852; El Neo-Granadino, August 5, 1852; David Bushnell, “Elecciones presidenciales colombianas, 1825–1856,” in Compendio de estatísticas históricas de Colombia, ed. by Miguel Urrutia Montoya and Mario Arrubla (Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 1970), 227.

48. Gilmore, “Federalism in Colombia,” 117–18.

49. Anthony P. Maingot, “Social Structure, Social Status, and Civil-Military Conflict in Urban Colombia, 1810–1858,” in Nineteenth-Century Cities: Essays in the New Urban History, ed. by Stephen Thernstrom and Richard Sennett (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1969), 332–36.

50. Gómez Picón, El golpe militar, 70.

51. La Discusión, December 11, 1852.

52. El Neo-Granadino, March 11, 1853; El Orden, March 20, 1853.

53. Obando’s cabinet appointments were mainly from his own wing of the party: Patrocinio Cuéllar was selected as his Secretary of Government; José María Plata, Minister of Finance; Lorenzo María Lleras was Secretary of Foreign Relations; and, as a conciliatory gesture, Tomás Herrera was named Secretary of War. Gómez Picón, El golpe militar, 109.

54. Richard Preston Hyland, “The Secularization of Credit in the Cauca Valley, Colombia,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1979, 72–73.

55. El Orden, May 1, 1853, p. 1.

56. Cuervo and Cuervo, Vida de Rufino Cuervo, 255; La Gaceta Oficial, May 23, 1853. The reference is to events in Caracas of February 24, 1848.

57. Democracia. Documentos para la historia de la Nueva Granada (n.p., n.d.); W., Breves anotaciones para la historia sobre los sucesos del 19 de mayo último (Bogotá, May 27, 1853); José María Cordovez Moure, Reminiscencias de Santa Fé de Bogotá, 9 vols. (Bogotá: Imprenta de La Cruz, 1910), 371–74; Alcance a la Gaceta Oficial, May 20, 1853; Gómez Picón, El golpe militar, 112–15; José Manuel Restrepo, Diario político y militar. Memorias sobre los sucesos importantes de la época para servir a la historia de la Revolución de Colombia y de la Nueva Granada, desde 1819 para adelante, 4 vols. (Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional, 1954), IV, 288. Following the episode, numerous artisans were arrested by the government. On May 25, Emeterio Heredia, Tiburcio Cárdenas, Carlos Navarrete, and others asked that they be released from jail. They claimed that it would be impossible to judge their guilt due to the complexity of the disturbances. AC, Cámara, Proyectos negados, 1854, III, folio 77.

58. As early as 1850 Democrats had worn a long ruana, red on one side and blue on the other, and a straw hat, to demonstrate their association with the Society.

59. Primera banderilla: A los gólgotas en las Nieves (Bogotá: n.p., June 1, 1853), AHN, Archivo Histórico Restrepo, Caja 89.

60. “One could not transit the central streets of the city without being exposed to verbal lances provoked by the workers, and from six in the evening onward it was dangerous to be caught outside of one’s house” (Cordovez Moure, Reminiscencias, 383).

61. Ibid., 377.

62. Mil ciudadanos, El 8 de junio (Bogotá: n.p., June 9, 1853); Mas de mil artesanos, El 8 de junio (Bogotá: n.p., June 9, 1853).

63. Un amigo de los artesanos, El valor de los artesanos (Bogotá: n.p., June 9, 1853).

64. José María Plata, El gobernador de Bogotá a los habitantes de la capital (Bogotá: Imprenta del Neo-Granadino, June 13, 1853).

65. Blas López, Miguel León, Anselmo Flórez, et al., Protesta de los artesanos Blas López, Miguel León, Anselmo Flórez y otros (Bogotá: Imprenta de Nicolás Gómez, June 17, 1853).

66. El Constitucional, July 8, 1853; La Gaceta Oficial, August 2, 1853; Cordovez Moure, Reminiscencias, 384–93.

67. Miguel León, ¡Artesanos ¡desangaños! (Bogotá: n.p., August 6, 1853).

68. CN, 1853, 661–68; Cuervo and Cuervo, Vida de Rufino Cuervo, 258.

69. El Termómetro, September 4, 11, 18, 1853.

70. In the Province of Bogotá, Conservative Pedro Fernández Madrid won the senate seat sought by Heredia and Miguel León by polling 8,121 votes. Heredia garnered 2,112 votes and León 1,974—respectable totals, but far from enough. Pastor Ospina won the provincial governorship by a three-to-one margin, denying the office to draconiano Rafael E. Santander.

71. Gilmore, “Federalism in Colombia,” 293; Venancio Ortiz, Historia de la revolución del 17 de abril de 1854 (Bogotá: Biblioteca Banco Popular, 1972), 44; El Catolicismo, July 16, 1853; El Constitucional, October 18, 1853.

72. El Neo-Granadino, October 20, 1853.

73. Gilmore, “Federalism in Colombia,” 301–4.

74. Reseña histórica de los principales acontecimientos políticos de la ciudad de Cali, desde el año de 1848 hasta el de 1855 inclusivo (Bogotá: Imprenta de Echeverría Hermanos, 1856), 14, 27, 64; Ortiz, El 17 de abril, 45–50.

75. Samuel S. Green to William L. Marcy, January 4, 1854, United States Department of State, General Records, DD.

76. Gómez Picón, El golpe militar, 138–62.

77. Ortiz, El 17 de abril, 60; Gómez Picón, El golpe militar, 155, 168.

78. Gómez Picón, El golpe militar, 155; Ortiz, El 17 de abril, 70–71; Causa de responsibilidad contra el ciudadano presidente de la República i los señoies secretarios del despacho (Bogotá: Imprenta del Neo-Granadino, 1855), 95.

79. El Neo-Granadino, January 12, 1854; Causa, 72; Ortiz, El 17 de abril, 59. Andrés Soriano Lleras, Lorenzo María Lleras (Bogotá: Editorial Sucre, 1958), 78. The junta consisted of: Patrocinio Cuéllar, Alejandro Gaitán, José María Melo, Ramón Mercado, Lorenzo María Lleras, Rafael Eliseo Santander, Ramón Ardila, Lisandro Cuenca, José María Gaitán, Erazo Madiedo, Nicolás Madiedo, Rufino Azuero, Ambrosio González, José Maldonado Neira, Emeterio Heredia, Miguel León, Ramón Gómez, Francisco Antonio Obregón, Tomás Lombana, Miguel Vargas, Juan Nepomuceno Conto, Melitón Escobar, Camilo Carrizosa, Juan de Dios Gómez, José Carazo, and Alejandro MacDowell.

80. Some public apprehension surrounded the new group. The leading gólgotan newspaper publicly questioned Lleras’s intentions. Apparently the Governor of Bogotá had much the same fears, as he called Heredia and the shoemaker José Antonio Saavedra into his office for questioning about the group’s activities. See El Pasatiempo, January 11, 1854; El Liberal, January 24, 1854.

81. Other proposals that were suggested but not approved included a call for establishment of a national bank to reduce interest rates on loans and formation of a Muzu emerald lottery to help reduce the national debt. AC, Cámara, Informes de comisiones, 1854, folios 296–300; Causa, 179, 341–44; El Neo-Granadino, March 20, 30, 1854.

82. Obando, Obaldía, and numerous members of the administration spoke at the Society’s meeting in honor of Independence. The next day a country excursion and picnic was enjoyed by over 1,300 Democrats, including General López. El Neo–Granadino, March 16, 1854.

83. La Gaceta Oficial, March 11, 1854.

84. El Neo-Granadino, March 20, 30, 1854; Causa, 179, 341–44, 371–72.

This poem from El Espía, April 11, 1854, indicates the social language of the pre-coup days.

85. Miguel Urrutia, The Development of the Colombian Labor Movement (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1969), 41.

86. La Gaceta Oficial, March 29, April 6, 1854; CN, 1854, 23.

87. La Gaceta Oficial, April 4, 1854.

88. Causa, 341–44; Causa de responsibilidad contra el ciudadano presidente de la República, Jeneral José María Obando, i los ex-secretarios de Gobierno in de Guerra, señores Antonio del Real i Valerio Francisco Barriga (Bogotá: Imprenta de Echeverría Hermanos, 1855), 33–35; Restrepo, Diario político y militar, 361.

89. On April 15, 1854, news of a melista uprising in Popayán reached the capital, adding to the general alarm. Some six-hundred soldiers had revolted in that southern city on April 8 in response to a false report of a gólgotan rebellion in Bogotá. The movement did not last long, as the governor was able to convince the men to lay down their arms. See Tomás Cipriano de Mosquera, Resumén histórico de los acontecimientos que han tenido lugar en la República, extracado de los diarios y noticias que ha podido obtener el General Jefe del Estado Mayor, T. C. de Mosquera (Bogotá: Imprenta del Neo-Granadino, 1855), 12.

90. Juan Francisco Ortiz, Reminiscencias de D. Juan Francisco Ortiz (1808–1861) (Bogotá: Librería Americana, 1914), 300–321.

91. Ortiz, El 17 de abril, 80; Gustavo Vargas Martínez, Colombia 1854: Melo, los artesanos y el socialismo (La dictatura artesanal de 1854, expresión del socialismo utópico en Colombia (Bogotá: Editorial la Oveja Negra, 1973), 74–75; Gómez Picón, El golpe militar, 260. Melo selected Obregón as his Secretary General; Pedro Mártir Consuegra, Secretary of Interior; José María Gaitán, Secretary of War and Navy; and Ramón Ardila, Minister of Finance.

92. Andres Soriano Lleras, Lorenzo María Lleras (Bogotá: Editorial Sucre, 1958), 67–69. Lleras was the most eminent political member of the Society, with a close relationship to Obando. But by the beginning of April, as Lleras began to distance himself from the plan, the influence of Francisco Antonio Obregón rose. All evidence suggests that Lleras and Obregón were in fact the primary planners of the 17 de abril. But, when Obando refused to head the movement, Lleras abandoned the effort. Diario político y militai, 361; El Neo-Granadino, April 27, 1854; La Gaceta Oficial, April 24, 1854.

93. Restrepo, Diario político y militai, II, 363–64. Restrepo noted that “others attributed his trip to revolutionary intentions.”

94. El Neo-Granadino, April 27, 1854; El 17 de abril, May 14, 1854; La Gaceta Oficial, April 24, 1854; Gilmore, “Federalism in Colombia,” 313.

95. Germán Colmenares, “Formas de la conciencia de clase en la Nueva Granada,” Boletín Cultural y Bibliográfico, 9:12 (1966), 2,412.

96. Causa, 346–49.

97. Francisco Antonio Obregón to the Secretary of Government, Bogotá, June 12, 1854, ACC, Sala Mosquera, No. 31,177; Francisco Antonio Obregón to the Secretary of Government, Bogotá, June 12, 1854, ACC, Sala Mosquera, No. 31,177; June 14, 1854, No. 31,178; José María Melo to Felipe Roa, ACC, Sala Mosquera, n.d., No. 31,288.

98. See Orlando Fals Borda, Historia doble de la costa, Vol. II. El Presidente Nieto (Bogotá: Carlos Valencia Editores, 1981), for process of the coup in the north.

99. Ortiz, El 17 de abril, 360-63; Gómez Picón, El golpe militar, 277–85.

100. Ortiz and Gómez Picón are the traditional sources for information on the rebellion. Extensive primary materials, however, remain unexplored in the Sala Mosquera of the ACC, the Herrán Archivo of the ACH, and the Fondo Militar of the AHN. The Sala Mosquera has much of the correspondence of the Melo regime, while the Archivo Herrán has much of the Constitutionalist records.

101. La Gaceta Oficial, December 10, 1854.

102. El Bogotano Libre, January 22, 1855; El Tiempo, May 13, 1858.

103. El Repertorio, December 20, 1854; La Gaceta Oficial, January 5, 15, 1855. Although the pardons had not so indicated, the military service of those accepting its terms was also to be served in Panama. Clearly constitutionalist leaders intended to purge the capital of its melista element. More melistas were exiled from Cali, Pasto, Socorro, Popayán, and other cities. See, for example, La Gaceta Oficial, January 1, March 13, 1854.

104. El Panameño, January 26, February 21, 1855. The three “pardons” were offered to 324 people. Eighteen escaped en route, but authorities in Panama reported the arrival of at least twenty persons not included in the official pardons. AHN, República, Guerra y Marina, Tomo 843, folio 953.

105. Lorenzo María Lleras San Bartolomé en 1855 (Bogotá: n.p., 1855), 12.

106. La Gaceta Oficial, March 1, June 8, 25, July 11, 18, 1855.

107. Restrepo, Diario político y militar, IV, 576.

108. Algunos presos, Señor procurador general de la nación (Bogotá: n.p., March 25, 1855), p. 1.

109. El Tiempo, January 9, 16, 1855. José María Gaitán introduced a resolution of impeachment based upon Obaldía’s alleged overstepping of his constitutional authority. The chamber ruled by a 31 to 14 vote that no grounds existed for the charge. AHN, República, Congreso, Legajo 31, folios 723–37.

110. El Repertorio, February 18, March 5, 1855; Lorenzo María Lleras, Señor Júez del crimen (Bogotá: n.p., January 27, 1855); Lleras, San Bartolomé; El Bogotano Libre, January 28, 1855.

111. David Sowell, “Agentes diplomáticas de los Estados Unidos y el golpe de Melo,” Anuario Colombiano de Historia Social y de la Cultura, No. 12 (1984), 11.

112. Restrepo, Diario político y militar, IV, 586.

113. El Tiempo, April 8, 1856.

114. El Artesano, May 22, June 16, July 3, 1856.

115. El Nacional, April 3, 1856.

116. El Ciudadano, May 31, June 26, July 29, 1856; El Nacional, May 29, August 7, 1856.

117. El Porvenir, September 2, 1856.

118. José María Vega, Santos Castro, José Antonio Saavedra, et al., Los artesanos de Bogotá a la nación (Bogotá: Imprenta de Echeverría Hermanos, November 15, 1857); Unos artesanos de 17 de abril, Contestación preliminar al cauderno titulado “La revolución” (Bogotá: Imprenta de “El Núcleo Liberal,” n.d.).

119. El Tiempo, December 1, 1857; Restrepo, Diario político y militar, IV, 700, 704–6; El redactor del Porvenir, Al pueblo (Bogotá: Imprenta de la Nación, November 10, 1857); Vega, Los artesanos de Bogotá; La Patria, December 5, 1856; Tomás Lombana, Manifestación (Bogotá: December 10, 1857).

120. Restrepo, Diario político y militar, IV, 725; La revolución: Orijen, fines, i estado actual de la revolución democrática que se prepara en esta ciudad, 3d ed. (Bogotá: Imprenta de F. T. Amaya, April 1858); Unos artesanos del 17 de abril, Contestación preliminar al cuaderno titulado “La revolucion.”

121. El Núcleo, January 26, 1858, passim.

122. El Núcleo, November 30, 1858; El Comercio, December 14, 1858.

123. El Núcleo, January 5, February 22, 1859; El Porvenir, May 13, 1859. Cárdenas had left the country after being jailed in 1850, visiting first Europe and then the United States. On July 4, 1853, while in New York, he commemorated the U.S. independence by the gift of a portrait of Colombia’s July 20, 1810, independence to the New York Historical Society. See La Esperanza, July 20, 1855.

124. El Núcleo, June 28, 1859; El Poivenir, June 7, 1859.

125. One law gave the central government control of local and district election councils and the other enhanced its power over local militia groups. Both moves strengthened Conservative influence in Liberal-controlled states. Pérez Aguirre, 25 años, 94–95.

126. Pérez Aguirre, 25 años, 108–9; David Church Johnson, Santander: Siglo XIX—Cambios socioeconómicos (Bogotá: Carlos Valencia Editores, 1984), 100–114.

127. Un campañero de Rodríguez Leal, Los derechos del pueblo (Bogotá: n.p., July 26, 1863).

128. Al pueblo (Bogotá: Imprenta de la Nación, July 21, 1863).

129. Ballesteros spent 3,000 pesos on his house and shop; José Antonio Saavedra bought a house for 1,000 pesos; Fuljencio Roa’s house cost 720 pesos; and Cruz Sánchez’s house and shop cost 4,200 pesos. Boletín del Credito Nacional, November 22, 1862, February 7, October 5, 1863.

130. Un artesano, Al señor Jeneral Santos Gutierrez (Bogotá: n.p., June 29, 1863), p. 1.

131. Robert Louis Gilmore, “Nueva Granada’s Socialist Mirage,” HAHR, 36:2 (May 1956), 190–210.

132. Craig Calhoun (The Question of Class Struggle [Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1982]) coined this phrase to describe the reaction of English artisans and townspeople to the advances of industrial capitalism in late eighteenth-century England.

Chapter Four

1. A los artesanos de Bogotá (Bogotá: n.p., n.d.).

2. Ambrosio López, El desengaño o confidencias de Ambrosio López, primer director de la Sociedad de Artesanos de Bogotá, denominada hoi “Sociedad Democrática” escrito para conocimiento de sus consocios (Bogotá: Imprenta de Espinosa, por Isidoro García Ramírez, 1851).

3. Cruz Ballesteros, La teoría i la realidad (Bogotá: Echeverría Hermanos, December 17, 1851).

4. Miguel León, jArtesanos jDesengaños! (Bogotá: n.p., August 6, 1853).

5. José Antonio Ocampo, Colombia y la economía mundial, 1830–1910 (Bogotá: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 1984), 110–11; Luis Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección en Colombia, 1810 a 1930 (Bogotá: Editorial Santafé, 1955), 263.

6. Miguel Samper, La miseria en Bogotá y otros escritos (Bogotá: Biblioteca Universitaria de Cultura Colombiana, 1969), passim, but especially 90–102.

7. La República, October 2, 9, 16, 30, 1867. Samper’s responses are in El Republicano, November 1, 12, 27, 1867. For other views of the crisis, see La Prensa, October 7, 1867; La República, January 28, 1868. David Sowell, “José Leocadio Camacho: Artisan, Editor, and Political Activist,” in The Human Tradition in Latin America: The Nineteenth Century, ed. by Judith Ewell and William H. Beezley (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1989), 269–79.

8. La República, October 2, 9, 16, 30, 1867.

9. Ibid.

10. El Simbolo, June 14, 1864.

11. Lawrence Goodwin, The Populist Moment: A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978).

12. Francisco Vega et al., Cosas de artesanos (Bogotá: Imprenta de Echeverría Hermanos, March 22, 1866); La Opinión, January 4, 18, 1866; La Libertad, January 18, 1866; El Bogotano, March 9, 1866.

13. At the time, many observers thought that collected funds had been mismanaged. See El Bogotano, March 9, 1866; Vega et al., Cosas de artesanos.

14. El Nacional, February 23, 1867.

15. El Liberal, July 16, 1863; La Opinión, July 1, December 8, 1863; El Municipal, December 21, 1863.

16. Agapito Cabrera, Dios, libertad i trabajo (Bogotá: n.p., June 18, 1863), p. 1.

17. Antonio Cárdenas, Fruto Castañeda, Gregorio Espinel, et al., Manifestación (Bogotá: n.p., October 8, 1863).

18. Ibid.; La Libertad, October 29, 1863. The October parade and pronouncement revived memories of the 1854 coup and sparked a heated polemic. See Unos artesanos que no serán simples espectadores de los hechos ulteriores, El fruto que los artesanos hemos cojido de las revoluciones pasadas (Bogotá: n.p., October 19, 1863); La Libertad, October 18, 20, 1863; La Opinión, October 20, 1863.

19. El Obrero, July 15, October 6, 18, 1865.

20. Gareth Stedman Jones, Languages of Class: Studies in English Working Class History, 1832–1982 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 7–8.

21. El Obrero, July 15, August 1, October 6, 7, 18, November 1, 1865.

22. Antonio Cárdenas Vásquez, Saturnino González, Felipe Roa Ramírez, et al., Varios artesanos de todos los gremios . . . (Bogotá: n.p., September 15, 1866). Anjel María Gómez, Cruz Sánchez, Camilo Vásquez, Mariano González, Daniel Boada, Rafael Tapias, and José María Pedraza also signed the circular.

23. La Alianza, October 1, November 10, 20, 1866.

24. La Alianza, December 12, 1866.

25. La Alianza, January 20, February 6, 20, 1867.

26. Helen Delpar, Red Against Blue: The Liberal Party in Colombian Politics, 1863–1899 (University: University of Alabama Press, 1981), 91; Antonio Pérez Aguirre, 25 años de historia colombiana: 1853 a 1878, del centralismo a la federación (Bogotá: Editorial Sucre, 1959), 261–62.

27. La Prensa, March 5, 15, 19, 1867; Pérez Aguirre, 25 años, 164–66; Delpar, Red Against Blue, 61; Gustavo Humberto Rodríguez, Santos Acosta: Caudillo del radicalismo (Bogotá: Biblioteca Colombiana de Cultura, 1972), 128–31.

28. La Alianza, February 20, 1867; La Prensa, March 15, 1867.

29. El Mensajero, February 15, 21, 1867; El Nacional, February 23, 24, 1867.

30. Anonymous to Tomás Cipriano de Mosquera, June 27, 1866, Bogotá, ACC, Sala Mosquera, No. 49,590.

31. La Alianza, March 4, 1867.

32. El Nacional, April 30, 1867; Pérez Aguirre, 25 años, 267–68; Rodríguez, Santos Acosta, 128–31; Pablo E. Cárdenas Acosta, La restauración constitucional de 1867. Historia de un contragolpe de estado (Tunja: Imprenta Departamental, 1966).

33. La Alianza, May 4, 14, 1867. Mosquera was tried by the congress in November on multiple charges and officially removed from the presidency. The general’s three-year jail sentence was commuted to exile in Peru, where he resided until 1871. The pro-Mosquera La Libertad carried a detailed defense of the ex-president during the last few months of the year, supposedly made by artisans and other supporters. It centered upon Mosquera’s lifelong support of the people against anarchistic Radicalism. Artisan signers of the document included Saavedra, Ignacio Beltrán, Bartolomé Paniagua, Ramón Ordóñez Torres, Agustín Garai, and Prájedes Bermúdez, many of whom had fought with Melo and some of whom were Alianza members. La Libertad, October 31, November 6, 13, December 4, 11, 25, 1867; January 1, 1868.

34. Indalecio Liévano Aguirre, El proceso de Mosquera ante el senado: Tres conferencias (Bogotá: Editorial Revista Colombiana, 1966), 62, 64, 92, 99. Liévano apparently relied upon Cordovez Moure’s Reminiscencias de Santa Fe y Bogotá for his account of Saavedra’s role, an interpretation that Cárdenas Acosta convincingly repudiates. Cárdenas Acosta, La restauración, 86–87.

35. La Libertad, October 31, November 6, 13, December 4, 11, 25, 1867; January 1, 1868; La Alianza, May 29, 1867.

36. Un liberal honrado, A los artesanos sensatos (Bogotá: n.p., June 1, 1867); Uno que no vive de empleo sino de su trabajo, Degollación de los artesanos (Bogotá, June 11, 1867); Dos artesanos, A los artesanos (Bogotá, June 11, 1867); El Republicano, July 17, 1867.

37. La Alianza, May 29, 1867, p. 1.

38. La Alianza, June 14, 1867; El Diario Oficial, June 7, 11, 1867; La República, August 14, 1867.

39. El Republicano, July 17, 1867.

40. La Alianza, August 1, p. 2, August 10, September 5, 1867.

41. La Alianza, February 13, May 29, June 14, 1867; April 25, 1868.

42. La Alianza, May 29, June 14, 1867.

43. Unión de artesanos (Bogotá: Impreso por Foción Mantilla, June 19, 1867); La Prensa, June 14, 1867.

44. La Prensa, June 25, 1867.

45. La Prensa, September 4, 1867; La Patria, October 4, 1867; La Libertad, December 25, 1867.

46. New officers selected to head the board of directors during its next six months included: Juan Cáceres, president; Agustín Díaz, vice president; Mariano González, secretary; and Fuljencio Roa, treasurer. La Alianza, December 5, 21, 1867; February 1, 1868.

47. La Alianza, February 1, 1868; La Prensa, December 13, 1867. The speeches of the meetings are in La Alianza, January 4, 18, 25, 1868.

48. La Prensa, December 13, 1867. The speeches of the meetings are in La Alianza, January 4, 18, 25, 1868. A non-artisan participant, J. Joaquín Borda, told the meeting of a Sunday School program for “children of the pueblo,” which began operation in 1868. La Prensa, December 13, 1867.

49. La Alianza, January 18, February 1, March 7, 28, 1868.

50. Saturnino González, José L. Camacho, Manuel de J. Barrera, et al., Representación al Congreso Nacional (Bogotá: Impreso por Manuel de J. Barrera, 1868). Three weeks later the Junta Piadosa, whose president was Ambrosio López, presented a similar request in support of La Alianza’s petition. La Alianza, March 15, April 13, 1868.

51. La Alianza, April 11, 1868. The Conservative La Prensa described the petition process in detail, claiming that the true cause of the economic misery was not foreign imports, but the result of party-generated wars which had robbed consumers of their funds. Thus it noted that the people who rejected the petition were the same people who had caused the problems in the first place. The paper warned that political agitators were ready to take advantage of the artisan’s disappointments and counciled craftsmen to remain peaceful. La Prensa, April 14, 1868; La Alianza, April 18, 1868.

52. La Alianza, April 4, 11, May 2, 1868.

53. La Independencia, March 28, 1868. Saavedra’s leadership of the new Democratic Society firmly linked it to the Mosquera wing of the Liberal party, which was attempting to reverse its setbacks of the previous year. The Democratic Societies were revived in the Cauca as a mosquerista tool as well.

54. La Paz, June 5, 1868.

55. Calisto Ballesteros, Protesta de varios miembros (a) de la Junta Directiva de la Sociedad de la Alianza (Bogotá: n.p., n.d.).

56. La Paz, June 5, 19, 23, July 3, 1868.

57. The reference is to Tapias’s June 1867 article “El Lunes,” in which he criticized worker’s celebration of St. Monday as contributing to political conflict, as well as to a waste of time and money. The article elicited a large negative reaction at the time. La Alianza, June 14, August 1, 1867.

58. La Alianza, May 23, 1868.

59. Madiedo’s article “El Cristo y los Ricos,” published in April, presented an articulate analysis of the labor theory of value. This piece coincided with the ideological stance revealed by artisan contributors to La Alianza although the reasons for the coincidence are difficult to determine. La Alianza, April 25, May 9, 30, 1868. The article produced a splendid polemic. See La Prensa, June 2, 1868; La Paz, May 26, June 2, 9, 16, 1868. On Madiedo’s social thought see Jaime Jaramillo Uribe, El pensamiento colombiano en el siglo XIX (Bogotá: Editorial Temis Librería, 1982), 187–97.

60. Ramón Jiménez was chosen president; Féliz Izasa was elected vice-president; and Tomás Rodríguez, the son of the Society of Artisans’ founder, Agustín Rodríguez, was named secretary.

61. La Alianza, August 15, 1868.

62. Saturnino Gonzáclez, Dos palabras en la cuestión Alianza (Bogotá: n.p., June 13, 1868); Isodoro Madero, El señor Cruz Sánchez i “La Alianza” ante el tribunal de la opinión pública (Bogotá: n.p., September 30, 1868).

63. La Alianza, August 15, 25, September 15, 1868.

64. Ramón Jiménez et al., La situación (Bogotá: n.p., October 6, 1868); La Alianza, October 4, 25, 1868.

65. El Noticioso de Cundinamarca, October 8, 1868.

66. La Alianza, October 29, November 7 (p. 1), 1868; Pérez Aguirre, 25 años, 282-90.

67. Jones, Languages of Class, 19.

68. Sean Wilentz, Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working Class, 1788–1850 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), 61–63.

69. The ideology detailed below comes from articles published over a two-year period in La Alianza, from a variety of different men. When possible, these artisans are identified.

70. Jaramillo, Pensamiento colombiano, 95–97, 107.

71. La Alianza, January 4, April 11, 1868.

72. La Alianza, April 4, 1868, p. 3.

73. La Alianza, October 10, 20, 1866; August 10, 1867; January 4, April 4, 1868.

74. La Alianza, August 10, September 5, 1867.

75. La Alianza, October 10, December 1, 1866; January 10, 20, May 14, 1867.

76. La Alianza, December 1, 1866.

77. La Alianza, October 10, 1866.

78. La Alianza, April 3, 1867.

79. La Alianza, October 20, December 1, 1866; April 13, 1867.

80. La Alianza, October 20, December 1, 1866; February 13, April 13, 1867; January 4, 1868.

81. La Alianza, February 8, 15, 22, 1868.

82. La Alianza, October 20, December 1, 1866; January 20, February 6, 13, April 13, 1867.

83. La Alianza, January 10, p. 1, February 13, 1867; January 25, 1868.

84. La Alianza, October 20, p. 1, December 10, 1866; January 20, February 13, March 4, April 3, May 14, September 5, 1867; January 25, 1868.

85. La Alianza, November 10, 1866; February 13, May 4, 14, 1867; March 14, 1868.

86. La Alianza, October 10, December 10, 1866; January 3, April 3, 5, September 5, 1867.

87. Emilia Viotti da Costa, “Experience versus Structure: New Tendencies in the History of Labor and the Working Class in Latin America—What Do We Gain? What Do We Lose?” ILWCH, No. 36 (Fall 1989), 3–24; Barbara Weinstein, “The New Latin American Labor History: What We Gain,” ILWCH, No. 36 (Fall 1989), 25–30; Perry Anderson, “The Common and the Particular,” ILWCH, No. 36 (Fall 1989), 31–36; Hobart A. Spalding, “Somethings Old and Somethings New,” ILWCH, No. 36 (Fall 1989), 37–44; June Nash, “Gender Issues in Latin American Labor,” ILWCH, No. 36 (Fall 1989), 44–50.

88. See, for example, A. G. Quintero-Rivera, “Socialist and Cigarmaker: Artisans’ Proletarianizaiton in the Making of the Puerto Rican Working Class,” Latin American Perspectives, 10:23, issues 37/38 (Spring–Summer, 1983), 19–38.

89. Paul Gootenberg, “Beleaguered Liberals: The Failed First Generation of Free Traders in Peru,” in Guiding the Invisible Hand: Economic Liberalism and the State in Latin American History, ed. by Joseph L. Love and Nils Jacobsen (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1988), 81; Paul Gootenberg, “The Social Origins of Protectionism and Free Trade in Nineteenth-Century Lima,” JLAS, 14:2 (November 1982), 329–58; Ricardo Temoche Benites, Cofradías, gremios, mutuales y sindicatos en el Perú (Lima: Editorial Escuela Nueva, S.A., 1985), 78–80.

90. Maurice Zeitlin, The Civil Wars in Chile (or The Bourgeois Revolutions That Never Were) (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984).

Chapter Five

1. El Liberal, September 27, 1869.

2. The Society attempted to establish a “deposit of national artifacts” to serve as a clearinghouse where a customer could buy a finished product rather than have to commission its production. See Diario de Cundinamarca, April 6, December 13, 1871.

3. Helen Delpar, “The Liberal Record and Colombian Historiography: An Indictment in Need of Revision,” Revista Interamericana de Bibliographía, 31:4 (1981), 528–30. For the antecedents to Núñez’s banking policies, see Richard Preston Hyland, “The Secularization of Credit in the Cauca Valley, Colombia,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1979, 207–8.

4. La Ilustración, February 26, March 25, 1870.

5. Diario de Cundinamarca, April 8, 1870; La Ilustración, July 27, 1870.

6. Diario de Cundinamarca, June 21, 1871.

7. El Bien Público, June 31, 1871. Later that year a chair made by Genaro Martín that had won a prize at the exhibition was presented to Robert Bunch of the British Legation in recognition of Britain’s support for Colombia during its war of independence. See El Bien Público, October 13, 1871.

8. El Bien Público, January 17, 1874; El Tradicionista, April 2, 1872; La América, November 16, 1872.

9. La América, March 15, 1872.

10. Diario de Cundinamarca, January 5, 1875.

11. Simón Sanmiguel, Fulgencio Roa, Ignacio López, and Benjamín Amézquita were the others.

12. Frank Safford, The Ideal of the Practical: Colombia’s Struggle to Form a Technical Elite (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1976), 206; El Progreso, March 11, 1897; Diario de Cundinamarca, October 12, 1881. The youths selected were Pompilio Beltrán (mechanic), Juan Nepomuceno Rodríguez (casting), Benjamín Herrera (lathe and construction), and Zoilo Cuéllar (foundry).

13. Diario Oficial, April 19, 1872; Diario de Cundinamarca, April 22, 23, 1872.

14. Helen Delpar, Red Against Blue: The Liberal Party in Colombian Politics, 1863–1899 (University: University of Alabama Press, 1981), 112–14; Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección, 268–70.

15. El Tradicionista, April 23, 1872; El Bien Público, April 23, 1872.

16. Diario de Cundinamarca, May 2, 1872.

17. Gerald Michael Greenfield and Seldon L. Maram, eds., Latin American Labor Organizations (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1987), xi.

18. Charles W. Bergquist, Labor in Latin America: Comparative Essays on Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, and Colombia (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1986), 54, 105–8.

19. Julio Godio, El movimiento obrero de América Latina 1850–1918 (Bogotá: Ediciones Tercer Mundo, 1978), 19–49.

20. Hobart Spalding, Jr., Organized Labor in Latin America: Historical Case Studies of Workers in Dependent Societies (New York: Harper &. Row, 1977), 15–17.

21. Characteristic literature includes: Reynaldo Sordo Cedeño, “Las sociedades de socorros mutuos, 1867–1880,” Historia Mexicana, Vol. 129, 33:1 (1983), 72–96; José Woldenberg K., “Asociaciones artesanas del siglo XIX (Sociedad Socorros Mutuos de Impresores, 1874–1875),” Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, 83 (1976), 71–112; Juan Felipe Leal and José Woldenberg, “Origenes y desarrollo del artesanado y del proletariado industrial en México: 1867–1914,” Revista Mexicana de Ciencia Política, No. 81 (1975), 131–34; Samuel Baily, “Las sociedades de ayuda mutua y el desarrollo de una comunidad italiana en Buenos Aires, 1858—1918,” Desarrollo Económico, 21:84 (January–March 1982), 485–514.

22. Peter Blanchard, The Origins of The Peruvian Labor Movement 1883–1919 (Pittsburgh: The University of Pittsburgh Press, 1982), 16.

23. John M. Hart, Anarchism and the Mexican Working Class, 1860–1931 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987), 30–31, passim; Sordo Cedñeo, “Las sociedades de socorros mutuos,” 94.

24. Sordo Cedeño, “Las sociedades de socorros mutuos,” 77.

25. Rodney Anderson, “Mexico,” in Latin American Labor Organizations, ed. by Gerald Michael Greenfield and Seldon L. Maram (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1987), 516. Sordo Cedeño, “Las sociedades de socorros mutuos,” 93–94, suggests that mutual aid societies served as the primary survival mechanism of artisans, who continued as a major segment of the Mexico City work force. See also Alan Middleton, “Division and Cohesion in the Working Class: Artisans and Wage Labourers in Ecuador,” JLAS, 14:1 (May 1982), 171–94.

26. Diario de Cundinamarca, August 5, 1872; Melitón Angulo Heredia, Informe del secretario de la Sociedad de Socorros Mutuos (Bogotá: n.p., February 6, 1873). Membership data is taken from El Tradicionista, September 8, 1874.

27. See, for example, Conferencias leídas en la ‘Sociedad de Socorros Mutuos’ (Bogotá: Imprenta de “La Luz,” 1888); La Nación, September 10, 1886; El Heraldo, June 18, 1892; La Crónica, August 11, 1898.

28. La América, May 28, 1873, p. 1.

29. Las Noticias, January 22, 1889; El Telegrama, January 22, 1889. For a partial membership list, see El Telegrama, July 13, 16, 1889.

30. El Taller, July 2, 1891; El Heraldo, April 9, 1890; La Patria, August 3, 1894; El Republicano, March 10, 1896.

31. La Crónica, September 20, October 1, 5, 14, 1899.

32. For a culinary history that stresses the introduction of non-Colombian dietary habits to Bogotá see Aída Martínez Carreño, Mesa y cocina en el siglo XIX (Bogotá: Fondo Cultural Cafetero, 1985).

33. José María Cordovez Moure, Reminiscencias de Santa Fé de Bogotá, 9 vols. (Bogotá: Imprenta de La Cruz, 1910), III, 141–44.

34. “Guerra y muerte a los que nos hambean.” La América, January 27, 1875, p. 1. These students probably identified themselves as “La liga de Astrea,” a shadowy organization that released leaflets attempting to incite the popular classes to radical political action. In the wake of the riot several leaflets claiming to represent the city’s artisans recalled the French Commune as the inspiration for the upheaval. See La América, January 27, 29, 1875.

35. La América, January 26, 27, 29, 30, 1875; La Ilustración, January 25, 26, 1875; El Tradicionista, January 26, 29, 1875; Eugenio Gutiérrez Cely, “Nuevo movimiento popular contra el laissez-faire: Bogotá, 1875,” Universitas Humanística 11:17 (March 1982), 179–83.

36. La América, January 27, 1875.

37. High food prices in the late-1880s created similar demands for government price controls. See, for example, El Taller, January 17, 1889; El Telegrama, February 13, 1889; Las Noticias, March 15, 1889; E. P. Thompson, “The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century,” Past and Present, No. 50 (1971), 76–136.

38. La Ilustración, January 26, 1875, p. 1.

39. David Sowell, “The 1893 Bogotazo: Artisans and Public Violence in Late-Nineteenth Century Bogotá,” JLAS, 21:2 (May 1989), 271–72; La América, January 27, 30, 1875.

40. Darío Bustamante Roldán, “Efectos económicos del papel moneda durante la regeneration,” Cuadernos Colombianos, 1:4 (1974), 561–660.

41. El Taller, January 17, June 1, 1889; La Unión, June 7, 1881; Las Noticias, March 5, 1889; El Correo Nacional, September 9, 1890; El Amigo del Pueblo, August 3, 1889; La Capital, October 10, 1890; El Heraldo, September 10, 1890; El Telegrama, February 13, 1889; Diario de Cundinamarca, August 3, 1889.

42. Colombia Cristiana, December 14, 21, 28, 1892; January 4, 1893.

43. AHN, República, Policía Nacional, Tomo 2, ff. 422–521r, Tomo 3, f. 409, 625–26; Diario Oficial, February 2, 3, 1893; El Correo Nacional, February 1, 1893; El Orden, March 4, 1893.

44. Oscar de J. Saldarriaga Vélez, “Bogotá, la Regeneración y la policía 1880–1900,” Revista Universidad de Antioquia, 37:211 (January-March 1988), 37–55; Alvaro Castaño Castillo, La policía, su origen y su destino (Bogotá: Lit y Edit “Cahur,” 1947), VIII, 12–18; Robert D. Storch, “The Plague of Blue Locusts: Police Reform and Popular Resistance in Northern England, 1840–57,” International Review of Social History (1975), 61–90.

45. AHN, República, Gobernaciones varios, Tomo 28, ff. 954–55.

46. El Artesano, April 8, 15, June 2, 17, 1893.

47. Those arrested included Genaro Gómez, Pedro Daza, Carlos Maza, Ricardo Castro, Ricardo Mafla D., Bernardino Rangel, Jorge Miguel Alvarez, Aparicio Reyes, Leonidas Hinostrosa, and Genaro Zeno Figueredo. Most of those detained were described as artisans, who were said to have been affiliated with all political groups.

48. La Ilustiación, February 12, 1870; Diario de Cundinamarca, January 31, 1874; Rejistro Municipal, November 15, December 16, 1874.

49. La Ilustiación, January 7, November 5, 1870; Diario de Cundinamaica, March 14, 1870.

50. La Ilustiación, February 6, 15, 1873; Diario de Cundinamarca, January 15, 1874; El Tradicionista, May 14, June 1, 4, 1872; El Deber, December 16, 1879.

51. La Ilustiación, July 27, 1870.

52. La Ilustiación, May 10, July 19, 22, 26, August 19, 24, 26, 1870; Los artesanos, Basta de abusos (Bogotá: n.p., July 18, 1870); El Bien Público, August 2, 1870.

53. El Tradicionista, February 28, 1874. Artisan political tempers flared that day as well. Cruz Ballesteros and Saturnino González, both of whom had been key Alianza members, were reportedly involved in a scuffle at the Plaza de Bolívar polling table. El Tradicionista, May 2, 5, 1874; La América, May 4, 11, 18, 1874.

54. Helen Delpar, “Renegade or Regenerator? Rafael Núñez as Seen by Colombian Historians,” Revista Interamericana de Bibliogiafía, 35:1 (1985), 27–29.

55. Helen Delpar, “Colombian Liberalism and the Roman Catholic Church, 1863–1866,” Journal of Church and State, 22:2 (Spring 1980), 288–89.

56. Delpar, Red Against Blue, 110–11, 114–17; Helen Delpar, “Aspects of Liberal Factionalism in Colombia, 1875–1885,” HAHR, 51:2 (May 1971), 255–65.

57. Diario de Cundinamarca, April 24, 29, 30, 1875; El Tradicionista, April 20, 1875; El Combate, April 24, 1875.

58. Muchos artesanos de la capital, Artesanos, juicios, in El Diario de Cundinamarca, May 18, 1875.

59. La Ilustiación, May 18, 1875; La Época, May 17, 19, 1875.

60. Diario de Cundinamarca, August 2, 4, 1875.

61. Alonso Valencia Llano, Estado soberano del Cauca: Federalismo y regeneración (Bogotá: Banco de la República, 1988), 202–38; Manuel Briceño, La revolución de 1876–77. Recuerdos para la historia (Bogotá: Imprenta Nueva, 1878); Constacio Franco V., Apuntamientos para la historia. La guerra de 1876 i 1877 (Bogotá: Imprenta de la Época, 1877).

62. Liberals in the Cauca valley formed numerous Democratic Societies in support of the existing order. See Diario de Cundinamarca, March 11, April 25, May 17, 23, 24, 27, 1876.

63. Diario de Cundinamarca, August 2, 3, 12, 1876.

64. Their chiefs included Cruz Ballesteros, Democrat Tiburcio Ruiz, Liberal artisan Antonio Sánchez, and moderate craftsman Pablo Bermúdez. Diario de Cundinamarca, August 14, 24, 1876.

65. Diario de Cundinamarca, March 12, 1879; El Liberal, February 8, 15, March 8, 1879; La Doctrina, April 23, 1879.

66. La Doctrina, May 7, 1879; Diario de Cundinamarca, May 6, 7, 10, 13, 1879; El Deber, May 9, 13, 27, 1879; La Reforma, June 10, 1879.

67. El Diario Oficial, April 8, 1880.

68. Muchos artesanos, La reforma de la tarifa aduana i la cámara de representantes (Bogotá: n.p., May 12, 1880), p. 1; La Reforma, May 26, 1880.

69. Miguel Samper, “La protección,” in La miseria en Bogotá y otros escritos (Bogotá: Biblioteca Universitaria de Cultura Colombiana, 1969); Diario de Cundinamarca, May 12, 1880.

70. David Bushnell, “Two Stages in Colombian Tariff Policy: The Radical Era and the Return to Protection (1861–1885),” Inter-American Economic Affairs 9:4 (Spring 1956), 15–16.

71. Luis Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección en Colombia, 1810 a 1930 (Bogotá: Editorial Santafé, 1955), 290-91.

72. Bushnell, “Two Stages,” 17, passim.

73. Indalecio Liévano Aguirre, Rafael Núñez (Bogotá: Cromos, 1944), 183-93.

74. Camacho, Félix Valois Madero, Cruz Sánchez, Genaro Martín, and Rafael Tapias.

75. Liévano Aguirre, Núñez, 175.

76. La Luz, July 28, 1882; Bushnell, “Two Stages,” 20–21. One should not, however, overlook the fact that these trades were also among the most prosperous at a time when the city was experiencing strong growth.

77. Bushnell, “Two Stages,” 20–21. When the Chamber dealt with Núñez’s 1884 tariff reforms, numerous artisans praised their efforts. See La Luz, February 20, 1884.

78. Diario de Cundinamarca, January 6, 14, 20, February 1, 3, 10, March 9, 22, April 15, 26, 1882; La Ilustración, September 26, 1882; El Comercio, August 30, 1882; El Patriota, August 27, 1883. The best sources of information on the group are the Diario de Cundinamarca, the Society’s newspaper, Salud Pública, and numerous leaflets it published, many of which are in the Hemeroteca of the Biblioteca Luis Angel Arango.

79. Alvaro Tirado Mejía, El estado y la política en el siglo XIX (Bogotá: El Ancora Editores, 1983), 103–4.

80. Delpar, “Núñez,” 33.

81. Jaime Jaramillo Uribe, El pensamiento colombiano en el siglo XIX (Bogotá: Editorial Temis Librería, 1982), passim.

82. Charles W. Bergquist, Coffee and Conflict in Colombia, 1886–1910 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1978), 42–44.

83. Delpar, “Núñez,” 29–33.

84. Delpar, “Colombian Liberalism,” 288–89.

85. Francisco Leal Buitrago, Estado y política en Colombia (Bogotá: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 1984).

86. Daniel Pécaut, Orden y violencia: Colombia, 1930–1954, 2 vols. (Bogotá: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 1987), I, 10.

87. Tirado Mejía, Estado y política, 110–19; William Marion Gibson, The Constitutions of Colombia (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1948), 299–313.

88. See José María Samper’s ideas on the party in La Nación, March 12, 1888.

89. El Instituto, December 8, 1886; January 1, February 23, 1887; La Nación, March 16, 1886.

90. El Orden, December 15, 1887; El Renacimiento, December 4, 1886.

91. La Nación, December 17, 1886.

92. La Nación, January 11, 1887.

93. El Taller, January 8, 22, 1887.

94. El Taller, February 2, 1887.

95. La Capital, November 7, 1890; El Progreso, March 4, 11, 1897; Los Hechos, August 1, 31, September 26, 1894; El Correo Nacional, July 1, 1891; El Grito del Pueblo, June 16, 1897.

96. El Correo Nacional, May 6, 1893; Los Hechos, December 6, 1894.

97. Diario de Cundinamarca, May 5, June 20, 1893; El Telegrama, February 15, 1890, May 22, 1895; La Capital, October 31, 1890; El Correo Nacional, May 11, 1891; May 28, 1892; May 7, 1894; El Orden, March 1, 1893; Colombia Cristiana, May 13, 1894.

98. El Taller, January 17, June 1, 1889; La Unión, June 7, 1881; Las Noticias, March 5, 1889; El Correo Nacional, September 9, 1890; El Amigo del Pueblo, August 3, 1889; La Capital, October 10, 1890; El Heraldo, September 10, 1890; El Telegrama, February 13, 1889; Diario de Cundinamarca, August 3, 1889.

99. El Taller, June 1, 1889; El Heraldo, March 30, 1892.

100. El Taller, July 27, 30, August 3, 1892.

101. El Taller, April 21, 1891. Camacho was vice-president of the electoral board working for Núñez and Caro’s victory in Cundinamarca. See his speech for the two in La Prensa, November 14, 1891.

102. El Heraldo, December 9, 12, 1891.

103. Delpar, Red Against Blue, 144–45, 150–57. Law 61 of May 23, 1888 authorized the executive to quell disturbances of public order by “imprisonment, or deprivation of political rights.” Bergquist, Coffee and Conflict, 37–38. For examples of the applications of these laws, see El Heraldo, August 13, 1890, and El Precursos, September 12, 1889.

104. Bergquist, Coffee and Conflict, 48.

105. Delpar, Red Against Blue, 149–57; Bergquist, Coffee and Conflict, 49.

106. El Telegrama, January 12, 1895; Los Hechos, January 23, 1895.

107. Bergquist contends that issues of political economy in large part defined these divisions. See “The Political Economy of the Colombian Presidential Election of 1897,” HAHR, 56:1 (February 1976), 1–30.

108. El Republicano, March 13, April 17, 1896.

109. La Crónica, December 21, 22, 23, 1897.

110. El Nacionalista, January 5, 1898; Delpar, Red Against Blue, 168.

111. Selected as the Industrial Club’s president was Pompilio Beltrán and as its general secretary, Alejandro Torres Amaya. See La Crónica, December 30, 1898.

112. La Crónica, January 3, 19, 26, 1899. The club founded in Barranquilla had more than political interests; on at least two occasions it engaged in strikes to improve worker’s conditions. See El Autonomista, May 26, 27, 1899.

113. Bergquist, Coffee and Conflict, 103–87.

114. Adolfo Meisel R. and Alejandro López M., “Papel moneda, tasas de interés y revaluación durante la Regeneración,” in El Banco de la República: Antecedentes, evolución y estructura (Bogotá: Banco de la República, 1990), 83–102.

115. Gonzalo Sánchez, “La Violencia in Colombia: New Research, New Questions,” HAHR, 64:4 (November 1985), 790.

116. Carlos Eduardo Jaramillo, “La guerra de los Mil Días, 1899–1902,” in Historia política, 1886–1946. Vol. I. Nueva historia de Colombia (Bogotá: Planeta, 1989), 89–112; and “La guerra de los mil días: aspectos estructurales de la organización guerrillera,” in Pasado y presente de la violencia en Colombia, comp. by Gonzalo Sánchez and Ricardo Peñaranda (Bogotá: Fondo Editorial CEREC, 1986), 47–86.

117. Malcolm Deas, “Algunos interrogantes sobre la relación guerras civiles y violencia,” Pasado y presente de la violencia en Colombia, comp. by Gonzalo Sánchez and Ricardo Peñaranda (Bogotá: Fondo Editorial CEREC, 1986), 41–46.

118. La Constitutión, October 11, November 26, 1902; La Juventud, January 18, 1903; El Impulso, March 4, 1903.

119. AC, Senado, Memoriales con informes, IV, 24–40r, 49.

Chapter Six

1. For discussion of this topic in French towns of the same period, see Michael P. Hanagan, The Logic of Solidarity: Artisans and Industrial Workers in Three French Towns, 1871–1914 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); and John Wallach Scott, The Glassworkers of Carmaux: French Craftsmen and Political Action in a Nineteenth-Century City (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974).

2. Los Hechos, May 20, 1904.

3. Los Hechos, May 27, 1904.

4. Los Hechos, April 23, May 10, 1904.

5. Los Hechos, June 7, 1904.

6. Los Hechos, June 11, 1904.

7. Los Hechos, June 18, 1904.

8. Los Hechos, October 5, 13, 1904.

9. Diario Noticioso, January 11, 1905.

10. Luis Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protección en Colombia, 1810 a 1930 (Bogotá: Editorial Santafé, 1955), 334–44, 358–59.

11. Eduardo Lemaitre, Rafael Reyes: Biografía de un gran colombiano (Bogotá: Banco de la República, 1981), 246–55; Charles W. Bergquist, Coffee and Conflict in Colombia, 1886–1910 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1978), 219–23.

12. Lemaitre, Rafael Reyes, 316–24.

13. El Faro, February 18, 25, 1906.

14. El Yunque, February 16, March 15, April 14, 19, 27, May 17, 24, 26, 1906.

15. El Correo Nacional, June 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 1906.

16. XYZ, August 17, 1907. Many members of the carpenters’ group had been members of the carpenters’ trade organization in the 1880s, which suggests a certain persistence of trade groups. See XYZ, May 9, 1907.

17. La Fusión, January 17, 1910.

18. El Correo Nacional, March 1, 1905; La Prensa, August 13, 1907; XYZ, January 31, 1907; El Público, January 30, 1907.

19. Estatutos de la Sociedad Filantrópica (Bogotá: Imprenta Eléctrica, 1906).

20. El Correo Nacional, January 18, 1905; El Artista, January 26, p. 1, September 29, December 1, 1906; March 21, 1908.

21. Urrutia, Development of the Colombian Labor Movement, 53, 60; Mauricio Archila, “De la revolución social a la conciliatión? Algunas hipótesis sobre la transformatión de la clase obrera colombiana (1919–1935),” Anuario Colombiano de Historia Social y de la Cultura, No. 12 (1984), 98–102.

22. La Constitutión, October 8, 1902.

23. El Correo Nacional, July 8, 1904; XYZ, September 21, 1904; El Nuevo Tiempo, January 16, 1909.

24. El Correo Nacional, March 24, August 20, 1908; El Nuevo Tiempo, January 13, June 14, 1909; La Unidad, July 22, 1911; La Gaceta Republicana, January 12, 1912; and La Sociedad, April 27, 1912.

25. El Republicano, April 24, 1907, p. 1; El Artista, April 8, 1908; El Correo Nacional, April 15, September 4, 1908, p. 1.

26. Bergquist, Coffee and Conflict, 242–45; Lemaitre, Rafael Reyes, 336–39, 345–57.

27. Medófilo Medina, La protesta urbana en Colombia el siglo XX (Bogotá: Ediciones Aurora, 1984), 19, 24, passim.

28. El Concurso Nacional, April 2, 1909; Unión Industrial, August 29, 1909; Medina, Protesta urbana, 24; El Nuevo Tiempo, March 13, 1909. Many contemporary sources downplayed the role of artisans in the events of the 13th. El Nuevo Tiempo, March 16, 17, 18, 26, 1909; El Correo National, March 24, 1909; and XYZ, March 19, 1909.

29. Christopher Abel, Conservative Politics in Twentieth-Century Antioquia (1910–1953) (Oxford: Latin American Centre, St. Antony’s College, Occasional Paper III, 1973), 14–15. See also the circular in El Nuevo Tiempo, April 5, 1909.

30. Murillo had been an active supporter of the Republican Union since its founding and had been a key figure in the Directorio de Industriales y Obreros associated with that party.

31. Unión Industrial, August 15, 21, 29, September 5, 1909.

32. La Gaceta Republicana, November 12, 15, 1909.

33. El Sufragio, February 19, 1910, p. 2; La Fusión, January 17, 24, February 16, 1910.

34. La Razón del Obrero, April 16, 1910.

35. La Razón del Obrero, July 22, 1910; La Correspondencia, June 10, 1910.

36. El 13 de Marzo, June 15, 18, 29, July 2, 1910.

37. Elections for departmental assemblies were held in February, for senators and representatives in May, and for municipal councils in October. El Proteccionista, November 26, 1910.

38. El Proteccionista, October 29, November 5, 12, 19, 26, December 4, 1910.

39. La Gaceta Republicana, January 24, 25, 28, February 1, 4, 6, 1911; La Unidad, February 7, 1911; El Tiempo, February 24, 1911.

40. El Comercio, June 1, 1911; La Gaceta Republicana, May 29, June 23, 1911. See El Liberal, June 24, 1911, for a list of all those elected and their factional affiliation. See Comentarios, July 8, 1911, for an interview with Restrepo.

41. The lectures of the Spaniard Pedro González Blanco sparked a series of clashes between pro- and anti-church partisans; many of the latter were identified with the Workers’ party. El Comercio, May 6, 1911; La Unidad, May 4, June 6, 1911; La Gaceta Republicana, May 1, 2, 4, 9, 30, 1911; El Contemporáneo, June 3, 1911; El Tiempo, May 2, 1911. The UNIO later helped to organize the 20 de julio parade. According to all accounts, the march was well prepared and a success, but, unfortunately, the bullfight held later that evening witnessed a violent confrontation between spectators and police. After several hours of disturbances, at least nine people had been killed and scores wounded. Most observers agreed that the UNIO had nothing to do with the violence; nonetheless its image was badly tarnished. See La Gaceta Republicana, July 5, 21, 24, 27, 29, 1911; El Tiempo, July 22, 25, 1911; El Día Noticioso, July 22, 25, 1911; Colombia, July 8, 1911; La Unidad, July 27, 1911.

42. El Tiempo, September 15, 1911; 3 y 2, September 13, 1911; Comentarios, September 28, 1911.

43. El Liberal, October 2, 3, 1911; La Gaceta Republicana, October 3, 7, 11, 1911; La Sociedad, October 3, 1911.

44. La Unidad, February 9, 1911.

45. La Gaceta Republicana, February 6, 1911.

46. Kenneth N. Medhurst, The Church and Labour in Colombia (Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press, 1984), 47.

47. Guillermo and Jorge González Quintana, El Círculo de Obreros: La obra y su espíritu, 1911–1940 (Bogotá: Editorial de la Litografía Colombiana, 1940), 9–21; Primer congreso eucarístico nacional de Colombia (Bogotá: Escuela Tipografía Salesiana, 1914). See also Jeffrey L. Klaiber, “The Catholic Lay Movement in Peru: 1867–1959,” The Americas, 40:2 (October 1983), 152, 158–59.

48. Jorge Orlando Melo, “De Carlos E. Restrepo a Marco Fidel Suárez. Republicanismo y gobiernos conservadores,” in Historia política, Vol. I. Historia de Colombia (Bogotá: Planeta, 1989), 223.

49. El Liberal, October 27, 1911; Vincent Baillie Dunlap, “Tragedy of a Colombian Martyr: Rafael Uribe Uribe and the Liberal Party, 1896–1914,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, 1979, 221.

50. La Gaceta Republicana, October 31, 1911.

51. See, for example, Ramón Rosales’s editorial in El Liberal, April 25, 1912.

52. La Gaceta Republicana, May 14, June 27, 1912.

53. One of the non-political objectives of the UNIO had been to form a Casa del Pueblo as a center for education and public health. Funds to that end had been collected, but the June critics claimed that no monies had been expended. El Liberal, April 13, 1912; El Tiempo, May 13, June 8, 18, 1912; Gil Blas, May 8, 1912.

54. El Liberal, August 14, 1911.

55. La Gaceta Republicana, May 14, 1912; El Tiempo, September 23, 1912; El Domingo, September 21, 1912.

56. El Liberal, January 30, 1913.

57. El Domingo, October 27, December 8, 1912; El Liberal, October 24, 1912.

58. El Domingo, December 15, 22, 1912; La Gaceta Republicana, December 16, 17, 1912; El Liberal, December 19, 1912.

59. El Tiempo, February 2, 1913.

60. La Gaceta Republicana, February 21, April 1, 14, May 4, 1913; El Liberal, April 1, 1913.

61. La Unión Obrera, July 10, 16, 27, August 2, 1913.

62. La Unión Obrera, July 16, 27, August 2, 1913.

63. La Unión Obrera, July 16, August 2, 14, 31, 1913; La Gaceta Republicana, June 6, 1913.

64. La Unión Obrera, July 16, August 19, 1913.

65. La Unión Obrera, July 16, 27, 1913; La Gaceta Republicana, June 24, July 8, 1913.

66. El Tiempo, August 2, September 29, 1911; La Sociedad, August 5, 25, 1911; El Ariete, August 18, 25, 1912; El Liberal, September 17, 1914; July 29, August 6, 31, November 12, 1915.

67. El Liberal, May 1, 1916, April 9, July 27, 1917; La Gaceta Republicana, September 4, 1918.

68. La Gaceta Republicana, September 11, 1913; La Sociedad, September 12, 1913; February 19, 1914.

69. La Gaceta Republicana, February 19, 24, 1914; El Partido Obrero, February 19, 1916.

70. El Liberal, October 13, December 1, 1914; La Gaceta Republicana, October 19, November 25, 1914.

71. La Gaceta Republicana, January 11, 19, February 2, 1915; El Liberal, January 18, 26, February 2, 12, 1915.

72. La Gaceta Republicana, May 3, 1915; El Liberal, April 28, 29, 30, May 1, 1915.

73. La Gaceta Republicana, October 8, December 9, 10, 1915.

74. El Partido Obrero, January 22, 1916.

75. El Partido Obrero, January 22, 29, April 8, 1916; El Domingo, January 16, 27, April 16, 1916.

76. El Partido Obrero, January 22, 1916.

77. El Partido Obrero, April 1, 15, May 1, 1916.

78. El Partido Obrero, January 22, February 6, 12, March 11, May 20, 1916.

79. El Partido Obrero, January 29, p. 1, February 19, 1916.

80. The editors were Hernán Caster, G. Arturo Camargo, and Samuel A. Ramos. La Libertad, March 4, 12, 17, 1916; El Partido Obrero, May 20, 1916.

81. El Liberal, January 11, 14, March 29, 1916.

82. El Partido Obrero, January 23, 1916.

83. La Gaceta Republicana, October 8, 1915.

84. El Domingo, September 10, 1916.

85. In 1917, 5,684 votes were cast; 9,200 were cast in 1915; 11,398 in 1913; and 10,624 in 1911.

86. La Gaceta Republicana, January 29, February 1, 20, March 3, 13, April 10, 1917; El Tiempo, February 2, 5, 1917.

87. El Tiempo, April 9, 1917. In spite of this attitude, the Party decided to cooperate with Republicans for the May congressional elections, forming a liga that defeated the “nationalist” wing of the Conservative party. El Tiempo, April 24, May 3, 13, 17, 1917; El Liberal, May 13, 1917.

88. La Gaceta Republicana, October 25, November 11, 1909; January 24, 27, 1914.

89. Urrutia, Development of the Colombian Labor Movement, 57–58; El Diario Nacional, January 16, 1918; Archila, “Algunas hipótesis,” passim. See La Gaceta Republicana, January 1918, for coverage of the strikes.

90. La Gaceta Republicana, January 14, 1918.

91. La Gaceta Republicana, October 20, 1916; El Domingo, October 22, 27, 1916; La Libertad, October 18, 1916. When orders were placed with Colombians, they were ofttimes greeted with praise, such as from shoemakers in 1914. See La Gaceta Republicana, January 28, 1914. Two years later, however, the same trade, while thanking the government for an army contract, said that the order should have been given to smaller producers instead of a large factory. See El Domingo, March 16, 1916.

92. La Gaceta Republicana, December 26, 1918; May 2, 1919. See La Gaceta Republicana, December 18, 1918, for the program.

93. La Gaceta Republicana, January 21, May 6, 1919.

94. La Gaceta Republicana, February 5, 7, 10, 15, 18, March 4, 10, 12, May 7, 11, June 6, 1919.

95. La Gaceta Republicana, February 15, 1919.

96. La Gaceta Republicana, March 8, 12, 1919.

97. Urrutia insists that the entire pretext for the demonstration and resultant loss of life was unnecessary, pointing out that the government annulled the decree on March 15, 1919, the day before the demonstration. See his Development of the Colombian Labor Movement, 63. In fact, the government only suspended bids for uniforms. In early April, an order was placed for 30,000 yards of cloth from a U.S. company. See La Gaceta Republicana, April 11, 1919.

98. El Correo Liberal, March 14 (p. 1), 17, 21, 1919.

99. La Gaceta Republicana, March 22, 1919; El Correo Liberal, March 17, 18, 1919. Súarez insisted that the victims were part of an armed uprising against the government and that the military’s response was totally justified. In April, however, General Pedro Sicard Briceño was subjected to a governmental investigation for his alleged unwarranted shooting of the demonstrator Gabriel Chaves. See El Correo Liberal, March 18, 20, 21, 1919; and La Gaceta Republicana, March 22, 24, 25, April 1, 2, 1919.

100. La Gaceta Republicana, May 2, 6, 7, 14, 20, June 6, 18, 1919.

101. La Gaceta Republicana, January 4, 12, February 4, 1919.

102. La Gaceta Republicana, April 2, 16, 22, 26, 28, May 8, 13, 1919; El Correo Liberal, May 6, 9, 16, 1919.

103. La Gaceta Republicana, June 6, 1919.

104. La Gaceta Republicana, May 7, 13, June 6, 18, 1919.

Chapter Seven

1. The relationship between changes in modes of production and political activity in nineteenth-century France is illustrated in William H. Sewell, Jr., “Uneven Development, the Autonomy of Politics, and the Dockworkers of Nineteenth-Century Marseille,” American Historical Review, 93:3 (June 1988), 604–37.

2. The widespread use of petitions as methods of expressing “popular ideology” in revolutionary period United States is discussed in Ruth Bogin, “Petitioning and the New Moral Economy of Post-Revolutionary America,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 45:3 (July 1988), 391–425.

3. AC, Senado, Proyectos Negados, 1846, V, folios 118–26; Agustín Rodríguez et al., H. H. senadores (Bogotá: Imprenta de Nicolás Gómez, May 5, 1846); AC, Informes de Comisiones, 1847, X, folios 229–41r; Saturnino González et al., Representación al congreso nacional (Bogotá: Impresa por Manuel de J. Barrera, 1868); AC, Senado, Memoriales con informes, 1903, IV, 24–40r, 49; Los Hechos, April 23, May 10, 20, 27, 1904.

4. Muchos artesanos, La reforma de la tarifa aduana i la cámara de representantes-, El Renacimiento, December 4, 1886; El Orden, December 15, 1887.

5. AC, Cámara, Proyectos de leyes negados, 1850, V, 43–49r; AC, Cámara, Proyectos de leyes negados, Informes de comisiones, 1851, VI, 404–73; González, Representación.

6. El Día, May 26, 1842; July 17, 1843.

7. The taller modelo of the 1890s culminated these efforts. See Diario de Cundinamarca, October 12, 1881; and El Progreso, March 11, 1897.

8. See, for example, Melitón Angulo Heredia, Informe del secretario de la Sociedad de Socorros Mutuos (Bogotá: Imprenta de Gaitán, February 6, 1873).

9. Robert Louis Gilmore and John P. Harrison, “Juan Bernardo Elbers and the Introduction of Steam Navigation on the Magdalena River,” HAHR, 30:3 (August 1948), 335–59; Luis Ospina Vásquez, Industria y protectión en Colombia, 1810 a 1930 (Bogotá: Editorial Santafé, 1955), 216.

10. Un artesano, Al señor Jeneral Santos Gutiérrez (Bogotá: n.p., June 29, 1863); Agapito Cabrera, Díos, libertad i trabajo (Bogotá: n.p., June 18, 1863).

11. For example, Ramón Jiménez et al., La situación (Bogotá: n.p., October 6, 1868); Diario de Cundinamarca, August 2, 3, 1876.

12. La Alianza, December 10, 1866, p. 1.

13. Unos artesanos que no serán sino simples espectadores de los hechos ulteriores, El fruto que los artesanos hemos cojido de las revoluciones pasadas (Bogotá: n.p., October 19, 1863); Un compañero de Rodríguez Leal, Los derechos del pueblo (Bogotá: n.p., July 26, 1863).

14. “El artesano de Bogotá,” El Núcleo, 1858.

15. Jacques Rancière warns against idealization of work and workers in assessing past social attitudes, suggesting that many artisans glorified work in order to enhance their own self-concept. See his article “The Myth of the Artisan: Critical Reflections on a Category of Social History,” ILWCH, No. 24 (Fall 1983), 1–16.

16. These thoughts are articulated in numerous artisans’ petitions, but most clearly in La Alianza.

17. William Marion Gibson, The Constitutions of Colombia (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1948), 120, 162, 204, 227, 316. In the period from 1853 until 1865, the State of Cundinamarca granted suffrage rights to all males over twenty-one; after 1865 literacy was required of all state voters. See also Recopilación de leyes y decretos del Estado Soberano de Cundinamarca, 1857–1868 (Bogotá: n.p., 1868), 145–46, 355.

18. All observers of nineteenth-century Colombia agree on this point. Many, however, disagree on the causes of the conflict. For representative interpretations, see Charles W. Bergquist, Labor in Latin America: Comparative Essays on Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, and Colombia (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1986), 291–94, and Frank Safford, “Bases of Political Alignment in Early Republican Spanish America,” in New Approaches to Latin American History, ed. by Richard Graham and Peter Smith (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1974), 71–109.

19. Helen Delpar, Red Against Blue: The Liberal Party in Colombian Politics, 1863–1899 (University: The University of Alabama Press, 1981) 98–109, 126–27.

20. Hobart Spalding, Jr., Organized Labor in Latin America: Historical Case Studies of Workers in Dependent Societies (New York: Harper & Row, 1977); Julio Godio, El movimiento obrero de América Latina, 1850–1918 (Bogotá: Ediciones Tercer Mundo, 1978), 15–16.

21. Juan Felipe Leal and José Woldenberg, “Orígenes y desarrollo del artesanado y del proletariado industrial en México: 1867–1914 (Bibliografía comentada),” Revista Mexicana de Ciencia Político, No. 81 (1975), 131–59; Guillermo Baena Paz, Rocío Guadarrama Olivera, Raúl Trejo Delarbre, and José Woldenberg, “Notas sobre la periodización del movimiento obrero (1860–1979),” in El trabajo y los trabajadores en la historia de México, ed. by Elsa Cecilia Frost, Michael C. Meyer, and Josefina Zoraida Vásquez (Mexico City: El Colegio de México, 1979), 2–33. Hart’s notable works on Mexican labor history pay close attention to the nineteenth-century anarchist groups, but fail to grapple with the intricacies of artisan organizational activity. See John M. Hart, “Los obreros mexicanos y el Estado, 1860–1931,” Nexos, 4:37 (1981), 21–27; John M. Hart, Anarchism and the Mexican Working Class, 1860–1931 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987).

22. Miguel Urrutia, The Development of the Colombian Labor Movement (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1969), 15; Orlando Fals Borda, Subversion and Social Change in Colombia, trans. by Jacqueline D. Skiles (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), 81.

23. David Sowell, “’La teoría i la realidad’: The Democratic Society of Artisans of Bogotá, 1847–1854,” HAHR, 67:4 (November 1987), 611–30.

24. For a comparable process in Ecuador, see Alan Middleton, “Division and Cohesion in the Working Class: Artisans and Wage Labourers in Ecuador,” JLAS, 14:1 (May 1982), 171–94.

25. Emilia Viotti daCosta, The Brazilian Empire: Myths and Histories (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985) 64–69; Roderick J. Barman, Brazil: The Forging of a Nation, 1798–1857 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988), 167–69.

26. Miguel Carrera Stampa, Los gremios en México. La organización gremial en Nueva España, 1521–1861 (Mexico City: EDIAPSA, 1954); Dorothy Tanck de Estrada, “La abolición de los gremios,” in El trabajo y los trabajadores en la historia de México/Labor and Laborers Through Mexican History (Mexico City: El Colégio de México and The University of Arizona Press, 1979), 311–31.

27. Alejandro Moreno Toscano, “Los trabajadores y el projecto de industrialización, 1810–1867,” in Enrique Florescano, Isabel González Sánchez, Jorge González Angulo, et al., La clase obrera en la historia de México. De la colonia al imperio, 3d ed. (Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 1983), 308.

28. Juan Felipe Leal and José Woldenberg, La clase obrera en la historia de México. Del estado liberal a los inicios de la dictadura porfirista, 3d ed. (Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 1983), 124–25.

29. Lyman L. Johnson, “The Silversmiths of Buenos Aires: A Case Study in the Failure of Corporate Social Organization,” JLAS, 8:2 (November 1976), 181–213.

30. Ricardo Levene, Investigaciones acerca de la historia económica del virreinato del Plata, 2 vols. (Buenos Aires: Biblioteca Humanidades, 1928), II, 285–86; Susan Migden Socolow, The Merchants of Buenos Aires, 1778–1810: Family and Commerce (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 129–31.

31. Jorge Basadre, Historia de la República del Peru, 1822–1933, 17 vols., 6th ed. (Lima: Editorial Universitaria, 1968), III, 183–84; Paul Gootenberg, “The Social Origins of Protectionism and Free Trade in Nineteenth-Century Lima,” JLAS, 14:2 (November 1982), 329–58.

32. E. Bradford Burns, The Poverty of Progress, 106–110; Herbert S. Klein, Bolivia: The Evolution of a Multi-Ethnic Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), 128–31, 133–36; Guillermo Lora, A History of the Bolivian Labour Movement, 1848–1971, ed. and abridged by Laurence Whitehead, trans, by Christine Whitehead (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 10–29.

33. Tulio Halperín-Donghi, Politics and Society in Argentina in the Revolutionary Period, trans, by Richard Southern (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 8–12, 48; Mark D. Szuchman, Mobility and Integration in Urban Argentina: Córdoba in the Liberal Era (Austin: The University of Texas Press, 1980), 7; James R. Scobie, Secondary Cities of Argentina: The Social History of Corrientes, Salta, and Mendoza, 1850–1910, completed and edited by Samuel L. Baily (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988), 4–10; John Lynch, Argentine Dictator: Juan Manuel de Rosas, 1829–1852 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981).

34. L. A. Romero, La Sociedad de la Igualidad: Los artesanos de Santiago de Chile y sus primeras experiencias políticas, 1820–1851 (Buenos Aires: Instituto Torcuato Di Tella, 1978); Maurice Zeitlin, The Civil Wars in Chile (or The Bourgeois Revolutions That Never Were), (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), 33–49.

35. Basadre, Historia del Peru, passim; Gootenberg, “Social Origins of Protectionism”; Paul Gootenberg, “Beleaguered Liberals: The Failed First Generation of Free Traders in Peru,” in Guilding the Invisible Hand: Economic Liberalism and the State in Latin American History, ed. by Joseph L. Love and Nils Jacobsen (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1988), 63–97.

36. Leal and Woldenberg, Del estado liberal a la dictadura porfirista; Leal and Woldenberg, “Orígenes y desarrollo del artesanado”; María del Carmen Reyna, “Las condiciones del trabajo en las panaderías de la ciudad de México durante la segunda mitad del siglo XIX,” Historia Mexicana, 31:3 (January–May, 1982), 431–48; Frederick J. Shaw, “The Artisan in Mexico City (1824–1853),” in El trabajo y los trabajadores en la historia de México, ed. by Elsa Cecilia Frost, Michael C. Meyer, and Josefina Zoraida Vásquez (Mexico City: El Colegio de México, 1979), 399–418; John M. Hart, Anarchism and the Mexican Working Class, 1860–1931 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987).

37. Michael P. Hanagan, The Logic of Solidarity: Artisans and Industrial Workers in Three French Towns 1871–1914 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).

38. Peter Blanchard, The Origins of the Peruvian Labor Movement, 1883–1919 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1982).

39. Peter DeShazo, Urban Workers and Labor Unions in Chile, 1902–1907 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983).

40. Mauricio Archila, “De la revolución social a la conciliatión? Algunas hipótesis sobre la tranformación de la clase obrera colombiana (1919–1935),” Anuario Colombiano de Historia Social y de la Cultura, No. 12 (1984), 51–102; Mauricio Archila, “La memoria de los trabajadores de Medellín y Bogotá, 1910–1945,” draft in author’s possession; Mauricio Archila, “La otra opinión: La prensa obrera en Colombia, 1920–1934,” Anuario Colombiano de Historia Social y de la Cultura, No. 13–14 (1985–86), 209–37; Herbert Braun, The Assassination of Gaitán: Public Life and Urban Violence in Colombia (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), 54, passim; Gary Long, “Communists, Radical Artisans, and Workers in Colombia, 1925–1950,” draft in author’s possession; Steven M. Zdatny, The Politics of Survival: Artisans in Twentieth-Century France (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990).

41. Bergquist, Labor in Latin America, and “Latin American Labour History in Comparative Perspective: Notes on the Insidiousness of Cultural Imperialism,” Labour/Le travail, 25 (Spring 1980), 189–98.

42. George Reid Andrews, “Review Essay: Latin American Workers,” Journal of Social History, 21:2 (Winter 1987), 312.

43. See, for example, Elsa M. Chaney and Mary García Castro, eds., Muchachas No More: Household Workers in Latin America and the Caribbean (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989); Scott Cook and Leigh Binford, Obliging Need: Rural Petty Industry in Mexican Capitalism (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990); Hernando de Soto, The Other Path: The Invisible Revolution in the Third World (New York: Harper Row, 1989), especially 7–129; Manuel Alvaro Ramírez Rojas and Jesús Antonio Suárez Rosales, El sector informal urbano en Colombia y las políticas de empleo, 1970–1980: Análisis de los planes y programas de desarrollo y la informalidad económica, 2d ed. (Bogotá: Ediciones Tercer Mundo, 1987).