Pre-European Mexico and the Spanish Empire in Central America

Before the Spanish took control in what would become New Spain and modern-day Mexico, the land was not expressly owned by any signal person. Though the Aztecs and other indigenous peoples were primarily nomadic, there were permanent settlements of various groups that lived there year-round.[1] The settlements and land belonged to the community, rather than an individual, though the individual did have the “right of the usufruct”.[2] This meant that a person or family could enjoy the rights, produce, and other uses of the land. Additionally, the Aztecs viewed much of their land and environment in conjunction with their religion. They had a natural cycle that the sun and rain replenished the plants that sustained human life. In return, they would honor the sun and rain with sacrifices that they believed would nourish them.[3] Even in areas the Aztecs had conquered, the people were allowed to retain their autonomy and land, with a few alterations.[4]

However, after the Spanish, led by Hernan Cortés and his men, conquered the Aztecs and other indigenous Mexican peoples, the land would be separated into large holdings, called a latifundio or hacienda.[5] The latifundio or latifundium came from the Roman practice, and it was known as a hacienda in the Spanish Empire. The land would be taken over by the Spanish and broken up into large plots that would be given to various Spaniards, who would come to be known as a hacendado. The main purpose of the haciendas was to grow and cultivate various crops, with a majority of the crops would be sugar, cotton, and corn. Overtime, several silver mines would be discovered and contribute to the feelings of hatred and dislike towards foreigners.

For a time, albeit fairly short, the indigenous people were allowed to keep small versions of their villages, and in exchange, they were forced into the encomienda system. The encomienda system was the response to a need of labor and the Crown’s ruling that the ‘Indians’ could not be enslaved to work the land.[6] Before the Spanish Conquest, the indigenous people were communal with the labor, and everyone in the village had specific duties that contributed to the village.[7] With the introduction of the encomienda, indigenous Mexicans were forced to “provide tribute and labor to a Spanish trustee, or encomendero, who was supposed to be responsible for their spiritual conversion and welfare.”[8] This system was a way to get rid of the indigenous religion that the Spanish deemed barbaric and very un-Christian. Though the encomienda system was introduced since slavery was deemed harsh, the encomienda was still especially difficult on indigenous laborers and the population of native people declined by 85% in the century after the conquest took place.[9] Now, the indigenous people that remained were forced to labor in horrible conditions on the land that rightfully belonged to them and their people without the support of their religion.

The feelings of anger and resentment towards those controlled and owned the land plots that were so prevalent in the Mexican Revolution and Agrarian Movement of the early 1900s could be said to have begun at the time that encomenderos and hacendados came into position. Most likely there would have very few Spaniards who treated their laborers with any kindness or respect. Further increasing the hostility  any indigenous people or persons born in New Spain or of mixed Spanish and native heritage would have felt ostracized by the peninsulares, or gachupines, who were born in Spain.[10]  There was a common feeling from the peninsulares that those who were born in New Spain were inferior as a result of the climate and that they might not be as loyal to Spain.[11] This supposed superiority of those foreign-born would continue up to the Wars of Independence and creation of the Mexican Republic.

Throughout the 16th, 17th, and early 18th century, the Spanish Crown no longer cared about the land, people, or the promise of gold. They were more interested in the silver mines that populated North and South America which held more promise, especially in the 16th and 17th century. With the renewed interest in finding passage West to China, rather than through the Mediterranean or around Africa, the viceroy of New Spain established a new port on the Western side of Mexican, Acapulco.[12] As a result of the decimation of the indigenous population and introduction of the African slave trade, the silver mines became very lucrative and trading with China increased. The increase in slavery and mining went hand-in-hand with increase of the exploitation of the lands, though the feelings of heritage towards the land was diminished and the colonial’s economy would improve greatly.[13] With ownership of land increasing in those of Spanish heritage, indigenous Mexicans would be less constrained in terms of labor from the Spanish Conquest to the Wars of Independence.

​

​

Full citations and bibliography can be found on the About Me page.

[1] Susan M. Deeds, Michael C. Meyer, and William L. Sherman, The Course of Mexican History (New York: Oxford University Publishing, 2018), 56.

[2] Enrique Florescano, “The Colonial Latifundio,” In The Mexico Reader: History, Culture, Politics, ed. Gilbert M. Joseph and Timothy J. Henderson (London: Duke University Press, 2002), 131.

[3] Deeds, Meyer, and Sherman, The Course of Mexican History, 53.

[4] Deeds, Meyer, and Sherman, The Course of Mexican History, 61.

[5] Florescno, “The Colonial Latifundio,” 131.

[6] Alonso de Zorita, “Why the Indians Are Dying,” In The Mexico Reader: History, Culture, Politics, ed. Gilbert M. Joseph and Timothy J. Henderson (London: Duke University Press, 2002), 122.

[7] De Zorita, “Why the Indians Are Dying,” 123.

[8] De Zorita, “Why the Indians Are Dying,” 122.

[9] De Zorita, “Why the Indians Are Dying,” 122.

[10] Deeds, Meyer, and Sherman, The Course of Mexican History, 160.

[11] Deeds, Meyer, and Sherman, The Course of Mexican History, 160.

[12] Deeds, Meyer, and Sherman, The Course of Mexican History, 121-122.

[13] Deeds, Meyer, and Sherman, The Course of Mexican History, 130-131.