Popular Liberalism and Indian Servitude: The Making and Unmaking of Ecuador’s Antilandlord State, 1845–1868

Speaking to Congress in September 1856, Ecuador’s President José María Urvina called for the passage of legislation to protect Indian pueblos from water-source appropriations.1 Ecuador’s indígenas, he lamented, were too often a casualty of exploitation—their resources divested and extorted by a class of “feudal lords.” Citing firsthand grievances collected while traveling in the sierra north of Quito, Urvina denounced the country’s deplorable history of halfhearted state protection of the indigenous class and affirmed his commitment to guaranteeing “community rights” against powerful serrano landlord interests. Sympathizing with the plight of pueblos that were being “squeezed dry,” he suggested that a violent Indian uprising against aggressive landlords, were it to happen, “might be excusable.” The president forcefully laid bare the potentially tumultuous consequences for the rural oligarchy should its advocates in Congress fail to intervene on behalf of the indígenas: “Now, I ask myself, if the pueblo throws itself into a deplorable extreme [of violence] as a last recourse [against] oppression, will the authorities have the heart to order its repression with bullets . . . ? If it became the case that all justice was denied to a pueblo protesting for one of its most clamorous rights, then the Government would not be able to respond.”2In classic caudillo rhetoric, Urvina reminded the legislature of his firm leadership over Ecuador’s armed forces. Indeed, his successes in professionalizing and centralizing the military made any threat of nonintervention a weighty one. At the same time, however, the speech gave voice to a broader attempt during the Urvina era (1851–59) to represent the central government as protector and advocate of Indian rights. Citing the “impotence” of Indian communities and other “unfortunate classes” in making their grievances heard, the central government asserted its responsibility to promote the “social well-being” of all sectors that “make up the great ensemble of the state.”3 The 1856 water-rights law, which passed shortly after Urvina’s speech, was part of an assemblage of midcentury legislation premised on making Indians “equal” to “the rest of Ecuadorans in the enjoyment of their civil rights.”4 While such laments over the Indian condition were standard official discourse in early postcolonial Ecuador, Urvina’s willingness to identify the specific and present causes of their misfortune was not. In his official pronouncements, Urvina articulated a formidable critique of serrano landlord interests—their “feudal” economics, their “colonial” social practices, and—at base—their “oligarchic” control over political decision making. Indeed, Ecuador’s midcentury liberalism was marked by antagonism toward landlord power and—adopting a similar anticolonial logic—religious authority. In so doing, it posed a coherent alternative to the customary political model premised on the state’s transparent and active advocacy of hacienda and church interests.Within Ecuador’s nineteenth-century political history, the Urvina project stands as an anomaly—a short-lived liberal exception that seemingly proves the rule of Ecuadoran conservatism. Indeed, early republican Ecuador is best characterized by its continuity with colonial attitudes, institutions, and geography. Perhaps nowhere in the former Spanish empire did landlordism and clericalism survive intact after independence as in Ecuador. Hacienda and church interests, geographically concentrated in the central-north sierra around Quito, continued to dominate political decision making.5 Compared with other new Latin American states, Ecuador’s ruling class was strikingly reluctant to experiment with liberal-republican precepts of a secular state, free labor regimes and land liberalization.6 Rather, Ecuador’s most viable political projects were embodied by the monarchism of Urvina’s predecessor, Juan Flores (1830– 45), and the ultramontanism of his successor, Gabriel García Moreno (1860–75).7 It would only be in the 1870s that liberals in Guayaquil, buoyed financially by booming cacao exports, surfaced as a legitimate opposition to the conservative Catholic hegemony. Liberal ideologues would have to wait until 1895 before they could marshal the military and political wherewithal to seize national power and elaborate a comprehensive national project of secularization and liberalization.8This article examines the rise and demise of Ecuador’s experiment in anti-landlord liberalism, replaced by the resolutely Catholic and antiliberal national project of President García Moreno. It studies three interconnected realms of discourse and practice in Ecuador between 1845 and 1868. First, it assesses the midcentury project of popular liberalism, emphasizing how law and official rhetoric of the Urvina state to Indians from the colonial of most labor It examines the of and for the indigenous which state into the serrano the of customary landlord and church it the of popular and as indigenous and to discourse and law to their over labor and the article examines the of Ecuador’s serrano to popular and state Ecuador’s of liberalism would the of conservative Catholic was a central military in the of 1845 that Juan Flores and country’s caudillo The around opposition to the of which Congress and a broader of midcentury liberalism in Spanish the of the rhetoric and that characterized in and during the Ecuador’s their of the early of and a of that to the from its colonial and all its the Flores in the his and landlord in the sierra as their class and while the in and The which and to and as the of a national of and in order to in a new of and from a of and social cacao landlords, Indian and and and sectors were all to the and in the central sierra in José María Urvina was in the of military he made and was Urvina was a strikingly by his political as a with a and While in history political he was for his and of political and of made the in national until from the of 1845 as the military and an popular In after the government to from Urvina of the of liberal and in the Urvina in a that was and the armed his authority. in a the serrano while his of In the oligarchy and labor to which the church as a powerful of serrano landlord an that the of their and political they the of in the Ecuador’s to a of In to the in Urvina the of other with the and legislation that would have of the political project a of Ecuadoran republican a of Urvina and his successor, the of social and and and civil for all Urvina’s and popular The of in political and was to the state’s of and with the of the serrano the state itself as of between and Urvina his to the of the country’s Indian he the of the most in the political project a commitment to the in which Ecuador’s to their with the rest of the In and the was central to the republican of social and that the to class and the for a of the popular liberal the an of the the project to have to the colonial of and The was after 1845 and in law the colonial of the which made Indians on for The of Indian to Indians to a national free from the of a powerful protector to Indians from and the of was not the of Indian the of indigenous and While it a of land for it continued to Indian and the state to and rural labor by Indian communities against the and of sierra a between and state, the to the colonial the of landlord and church and of Urvina’s Indian was and from attempt to control the of the country’s Indian for was most in the on law a in the and to a Indian to the state was with protection and and Indian were a of and The to the Indian model from it an that to and by and the It the sectors of the Indian that were to the law, was for state rights, and in the continued to be as a between a state and Indian Indeed, as was the case in discourse on Indian of is law the of the state’s Indian was to the of the and In the of Guayaquil, and Indians were a and was to be its and was to the of “the of While Indians were from Urvina’s Indian to their toward however, the of the were for the the of and the was it was a The between and replaced the as the central Ecuador’s Indian articulated a of the of Indian and liberals the not as a of and as a one. from an on the into the of and the as the in Indian of the law, on Indian and the other the of and to all the of the colonial Indians as and the of the of Indians would in the same and as “the of from the Indians would be free to represent in any political In with the of the law, however, Indians would to in the from it the of the law the of the Indian in Ecuador and on the and The of Ecuadoran of as the of Indian the of the as as of all Indian were an to republican and the it were as the of the social free was in a be the state the of free Indians and a of church and powerful the of the were as and The free so the hacienda able to his and on the of with his law the of Indian to the of into It colonial on land Indians their In the on Indian land into a Latin American liberal that as a central to and political by up the and of Indian communities the the and a of and would into while was on it was in to the of indigenous liberal land the made attempt to Indian communities their of Indeed, Urvina’s legislation Indian to The same that asserted Indian to a for their to The law all with they to an indigenous and it in other as it to Indian the law and of the Indian In land was so as to the Indian of the advocacy of was its antagonism toward the of labor While the of was the of political the of and the of hacienda to were central to of the an from state of landlord interests. in an of the of in rural labor that all Indian to would be their with their his a would be from to the of one the would be to his the that he the in which on with Ecuador’s Indian were the to free from be the law was not in the of the of was and the the heart of the hacienda labor a to his to the of his the against the of as a of as an of it as a of as the of would have for landlords, for the of labor to their and for their as The law the that landlord was with national a political that the popular Indeed, midcentury Indian as an for the of landlord with national and an alternative social for Ecuadoran and the was the of a broader to landlord and The for the condition of Indians and their as to the national one not a a and I have the to for the of between the condition of the Indian and the practice of labor the and the state to itself as the between and Indeed, discourse was central to the broader political the and of state In the of the of the the state’s advocacy of Indian was of The of the indigenous was a the it the state to not only “colonial” the of republican of the state into of its to Indians a the state the of and that called for and comprehensive Indeed, in the that the of Indian a and the of the would be from a he did not to the central state a in which were and would land from the it was an attempt to the state’s into the to Indian land from and into the of by the into the of the Indian in the after as power and the of Indian The to on replaced with national of the in was as a of the Ecuador’s the was as a with the to their social In of the Indian to their in of Quito, for the was to to “make the Indians that the of not the and their the of a of the broader in Indians for the of and the of Indeed, legislation consequences for in the serrano The of the liberal of the central government and for and free Indians to their with authorities and Indian was a that the and of the state, its opposition and At the same time, however, the over the and of labor was most the Indian and the state the most The and of state Urvina on social were and a of state by power most landlords, and Indian by the in the of and in rural his the Spanish on the plight of Ecuador’s by President as the to Quito, the of labor on the of the a broader a of the of labor the such were of the which Ecuador’s indigenous an of Ecuador’s labor his to the broader its and on as a of the state of during and after the for from the of the the law the state’s of Indian the that not any the for commitment to While the as of the of Indian he as that it did the the to his condition by his the that such their that in for labor was it was often to the from the In such power to their is of an to landlord authority. The of the he was by as a as in their with customary landlord of and on the part of the a broader of landlord over their of control over the labor and the state’s active protection of Indian rights. Indeed, while in the Indian legislation of the Urvina articulated the of the and its of as a Indians could and did into power in their with their the and the of the law for the landlord it the broader history of and in Ecuador’s central-north it to the only as a of labor in the of after the and of the labor in the colonial The to the Ecuadoran as a for labor made between the of such on and they the of and other and a from to Ecuadoran and of midcentury rural the of in to an of nineteenth-century to to their a of church and the of the labor before on state and the of Indian to their and posed an for for to while Indian into their condition as it did to from between from to in of labor as the the of from one with of could from any on the of while against the if an Indian up on the same the and the of the from the for of was to of to and during the early republican for the of that to a of of state to the of Indians the and to the of from the the customary for hacienda to hacienda labor Indian a labor for the of the Ecuadoran the of were over the national of the to and of power and labor is not to that the were they would with in and in the same the and of the the is a that is three into The of labor on and the willingness of a to against The of in a on the of that their in and The of the and the and that to a In that communities in were be to to The and of in to and in to the and of labor the hacienda other with In the the and of were specific between customary labor practices, and of was in the of and that the was most to and most to Indian the of for for labor from cacao were the law, that it the that Indian with the “the of the opposition to in was against the central to national It was an attempt to a formidable and for the Indeed, it would be would a in Congress to have the article in the law labor and the of that from into between and an in from new In and with a rise in Indian and social however, is the of to landlord Indians were not being by between In they the powerful landlord advocates by the in social between and the to an before the of to an and Indians in their with one official an Indian . . . not to his in which he his to an of an not only the of labor . . . as it the Indian to Indeed, most by the of Indian to the central-north the of law on was In the central of and for to have able to new into social In of land a of and an and rural labor a to In the of for Indians were to have a and of the in of being by their and their to the serrano of the in if consequences for Indian labor in the Indians were to from the of the central was as of the and with the and of and the a that power to their to the The Indians other and making. The of the Indian in the the to and a labor of a and was from his to in the early by to be on the in Indian labor in is of the by which called asserted their new to state and landlord and In early José María a in the of to have his by a so as to his to a new with a other to with an of an hacienda in their were and the by their new the the of to the to the by their Citing a civil which from until could be and that his were to was a The of the however, was not it the and social consequences of Indian for that Indian would the with its he Indian to his as a to their which a that the of and in the their decision to the the Indians a of to their as in similar made specific of however, their in and asserted their to their labor to “the best and of the with to will with with the and in their and their to the new The decision affirmed the and to their in other similar a was to be to of his and the their in around the of to and their in the pueblos of and however, that the decision to as it to the the the the Indians to their and to the for until could be The decision was of a broader in to the of Indian during the era of President García Moreno. the Urvina’s liberal were from the central and its rhetoric was replaced by while on from García they could not the and and Indeed, to the former were with Indian and of the and to to the state’s of a commitment to Indian rights. they the state for the of the the Indian Indians the state’s in over Indians and the state’s commitment to the of not the . . . . . . to be by any other one the case that it were only of the in the be as to the that their Indian during the the of and the of the Indian to of were in their to to as an José María for that the from as an in the of for over a asserted that he his former and to in any the hacienda to he to the government for any on his be the to was that the for and by were the While from one to they the was by a of to a power and could from from state and church other often to and which they by for in of a was often an and up to their the of his by was a for a The of labor during and an did not their to the Indeed, after a were they the same for their they their to a to to the Hacienda to which nowhere will be able to the that have were in their they did not their to Rather, they often did so their to the best of while would a political in the they to Indian and to from the of the to their was a in their to and the threat of gave in a their present of to have part of for Indians in the of their with The to which a of for should not be the political of did up the between and to and the for to their rights. by the of the state as an in new to made by in over over the and of the between Indian and landlord the state as a its and of of Ecuadoran Indian during the and was its with liberal of and in class such present before a between landlord and state a for the of Indian rights. the Flores the into a colonial were so were colonial land and the Indians were to advocate their as and their as a political was into if political power for Ecuador’s Indian serrano were to the and broader of Indian that the law was the of a to and into of national a government with the and popular to itself as a of “the and not to the in not only serrano as the of national and as in the of national In they their and as the and as a class the of national In to the of the state’s of Indian labor the of however, the landlord be as a to as the legitimate of the national the a of against government into their customary of In the an by to the and of and social power political In the in and a government García to up their power and an to the political the early to in to national on and and to state and their Perhaps their most formidable was their continued to over the in during the power over was and to labor the same as the of being the of the in other such as in and their were in and gave in political decision is in the of government that the of serrano landlord a the early the sierra with a of and landlord control over were from to to labor comprehensive labor between and to the of their to and labor in of and authorities in order to their power and the of to that an and the the and of while in the central-north in great with not by the a of and similar First, all to a of labor of control was as a of customary order and that was to for and The for its into labor as an and to In rural and a from the of a comprehensive labor the were as a of and so as to the of rural the new the and of Indian were for from and on were against the the and the such called for of and to Catholic for all of social and however, were as a of a labor one in which Indians too Indeed, the of Indian to the and power of to to free Indian the were an attempt to the and of so as to landlord control over its the of labor any that was the to that from and to the authorities so that any such could be he between were only the of a which would the of a in the however, was an of to the of of were to an the in their In to did not to a from a could the to he in he was to his until the toward a for as the of of the were to all in a on While were to to the of to they and weighty were laid for all not to their the new labor made it that for and from a would be on with their the for was on the labor for to that and in their and all to the their in and the labor a from the commitment of be the such as and with their while they from the national legislation of the the a which Indians could the of the law and for their rights. as national and to an on and order the and would the rhetoric of new national in their with and while it did not Indian political the of the marked the of an for Indian of labor in the with a to a of between government and landlords, one that political to authorities and the state’s toward the popular Indeed, the political of which in a new era of García was a of state and the of Ecuador into in power a to to the political decision making and the state’s as of the rural legislation of the early from in a new national of The and the of the same with from the of central the García Moreno the to be in its In the same he would the national of the Catholic García Moreno an with would in his to a and Ecuadoran The new president the conservative colonial that of republican the and of Indian the of to their and the state in the was to while were to their the of national and into hacienda labor In as a national class and asserted a coherent of their interests. The and of landlord and class during the the serrano a In the of the most they their of the national the Indian and midcentury a all political the of Indians in national The between liberal and conservative landlord were a of the Indian as a of In the of the of the which the Indian was and it as a not to the of to its in Indians into national the for the political of the Indian in Ecuador’s conservative and liberal the of was on the the state’s attempt to labor a political Indeed, it a broader over not only the Indian the of state power and the of landlord class national to the the most nineteenth-century of landlord and of the model of state power that hacienda with the national state that as a were to the of the to that they were a and the of broader national interests. that legislation was and the of and and their of the was a of the of and by a could to the and of the In they and as and and labor as with and the and order of the a and a While that Indian state they the government to in with the of national in the of Indians with landlord were not to their of in class they their advocacy as a to the of the Indeed, to their as the Indian class against “the rest of to be by and to be in of the of “the Ecuadoran they as of a national of the and of of was a not of of national of discourse of was on the that the hacienda was a of and the a as they their with national so too did they their and as the and for the early colonial the to Indian from it was that would their Indians with in Catholic The nineteenth-century Ecuadoran as to continued to a in the and of his Indians were as and the and of a the of labor was to legitimate the power of laments against the of