The Family Tree Is Not Cut:
Marriage Among Slaves in Eighteenth Century Puerto
Rico
A
people without the knowledge
of
their past history, origin and
culture
is like a tree without
roots.
Marcus
Garvey
The frequency and nature of slave marriages in Puerto
Rico has long been a subject of controversy.
Scholars including Luis Díaz Soler (1953:174) affirm that marriages were
not only common but, more importantly, that owners, along with religious and
civil authorities, encouraged marriage and family life among slaves throughout
the colonial period. This served as a
means of increasing the number of enslaved laborers on the island without
having to rely on the introduction of African slaves. Using nineteenth-century census records and other archival
sources’, James L. Dietz (1986:39), Pedro San Miguel (1988:86), and James
Wessman (1980:288) have refuted notions that civil and religious authorities
alike sought to promote slave marriages.
These same scholars have also cast doubt on the actual number of formal
unions that occurred. Since then, the
assumption has been that marriage among slaves in this Caribbean island was not
common and that slaves were unable to establish links of association or ties of
kinship within the structure of the dominant society or outside of it. Unlike other areas of Latin America, many
documents in Puerto Rico relating to the first centuries of Spanish
colonization have disappeared (Silvestrini and de Castro Arroyo 1981:157),
making it difficult to assess these dimensions of slave life.[1] Because of the scarcity of primary sources
from the colonial period, slaves have often been perceived as a people without
a reconstructable past.
Utilization of a methodology known as family
reconstitution supplies the key to filling this gap in our understanding of
colonial Puerto Rico. Family
reconstitution, which is mostly based on parish registers, consists of two
stages (Knodel 1988:3). The first
involves linking together births (baptisms), marriages, and deaths (burials) to
form family groups consisting of a married couple and their children. The second stage entails computing measures
of demographic behavior, such as birth and death rates. However, the family reconstitution I have
used is limited to the first stage and is not the classic form developed by
Louis Henry, et al.[2] I utilize parish baptismal, marriage, and
death registers surviving from the agriculturally and geographically diverse
island communities of Arecibo (1708-1757), Caguas (1731-1804), Coamo
(1755-1800), and Yauco (1751-1790) to reconstruct the vital statistics of
individual slaves, their families, and their owners over several
generations. In order to follow slaves,
their families, and their owners who may have moved to communities adjacent to
ones selected for this study, whenever possible I consulted surviving parish
registers from bordering communities.[3] I was able to document 237 marriages in
which one or both spouses is a slave.
With this information, I will study the frequency of slave marriage in
the eighteenth-century communities to see whether it was higher than in the
nineteenth-century communities examined by Wessman and San Miguel, or by
Dietz. The data set that I compiled
also enabled me to ascertain whom, at what age, and at what times of year
slaves most frequently married. These
data enable me to demonstrate that marriage among slaves was not uncommon and
that they had a family history much like the rest of society.
This article is divided into several parts. My strategy is to provide first a historical
framework for understanding economic conditions that shaped the island slavery,
then to examine slavery within the context of the work regimens and material
conditions of life associated with Puerto Rico’s eighteenth-century
agricultural economy. I continue with a
brief overview of the religious context and social implications of marriage
among slaves. Then, I will look at the
examples of Pedro and Francisca and Lázaro and Agustina--two slave couples married
in the southern coastal community of Coamo on December 29, 1793--in order to
provide greater insight into spousal selection patterns as well as the impact
of the liturgical and the agricultural calendars upon the seasonality of slave
marriage.[4] Finally, I will explore the ways in which
slaves pursued marital strategies, allowing them to manipulate material
conditions of life within the constraints of slavery. As we shall see, many slaves in Puerto Rico during the eighteenth
century not only asserted their humanity by marrying but also created viable
patterns of family life that we can reconstruct.
The Agricultural Economy in Puerto Rico, 1508-1800
The institution of slavery in the Caribbean was shaped
by unique cultural and economic forces.
Some Spanish colonies including Puerto Rico experienced an initial cycle
of sugar and slavery that began in the 1540s.
The Spanish Crown encouraged the rise of sugar cultivation through
grants and loans, and the production of this commodity was initially quite
lucrative. However, sugar production in
Puerto Rico declined following an attack on San Juan and its brief occupation
by an English fleet under the command of the experienced seaman George Clifford,
third Earl of Cumberland, in the summer of 1598, in which all the ginger,
hides, and sugar in the city and the surrounding countryside were seized as
booty. Cumberland made off with 2,000
slaves and 200,000 pounds of sugar.
Puerto Rico’s agricultural economy never recovered. The Spanish Crown in the year 1600 ordered
that monies be distributed among the island’s sugar mill owners and that 200
African slaves be introduced into the island as compensation for losses
sustained (Moscoso 1999:75). However, these
concessions were not immediately implemented.
This, along with restrictive trade policies associated with
mercantilism, such as those requiring all Spanish colonies to trade exclusively
with Seville using Spanish ships and merchants, limited opportunities for legal
trade and spelled disaster for the island’s sugar industry.
Spanish mercantilist policies fostered an increase in
smuggling by British, Dutch, and French traders and, even more harmful for
Spanish trade, in piracy. This occurred
precisely when production of sugar began in the non-Hispanic Caribbean during
the 1630s and 1640s. The focus of
Puerto Rico’s agricultural economy was gradually transformed from one based on
the produce of sugar plantations to one based on cattle ranching and production
of foodstuffs. For nearly a century
beginning around 1675, these pursuits combined with the export of hides, dye
and hardwoods, along with the cultivation of tobacco and cotton to become the
island’s principal economic activities (Moscoso 1999:98-100).
If we look at the geography of the Caribbean economy
from 1675 to 1765, two distinct zones emerge.
The first consists of the plantation zones or sugar islands of the
non-Hispanic Caribbean; the second comprises the provider colonies of the
Spanish Caribbean including Puerto Rico.
The latter supplied draft animals and foodstuffs for slaves needed to
support sugar production elsewhere as described by Picó (1986:94), González
Vales (1990:120), and Giusti Cordero (1993:6 and 22). With few legal outlets for their goods, planters and ranchers throughout the island were
increasingly drawn into the complex web of intra-Caribbean contraband
trade. In effect, there were two Puerto
Rican economies: legal and illegal.
Legal trade with Spain or Spanish colonies was practically non-existent,
a fact that has led some scholars such as López Cantos (1975:93 and 127) and
more recently Padilla (1985:108) to conclude that the island’s economic
development reached its nadir at this time.
Notwithstanding, an illegal trade thrived. Livestock, dyewoods and timber, and foodstuffs were exchanged
with adjacent islands in the non-Hispanic Caribbean for clothing, iron tools,
and slaves.
After
1765, Puerto Rican agriculture entered into a period of rapid expansion. This resulted from the easing of trade
restrictions, the liberalization of the slave trade, and the influx of monies
earmarked for the construction of military fortifications in San Juan (Bergad
1983:4-12). These factors were
instrumental in laying the foundations for the subsequent rise of
labor-intensive export agriculture, especially sugar. Up through the dawn of the nineteenth century, Puerto Rico’s
agricultural economy had required few slaves.
Such circumstances relegated sugar planters and slavery to a largely
peripheral role in the island’s predominantly rural economy. Sugar production came to dominate the
agricultural landscape especially during its golden age between 1820 and 1845. Under sugar the institution of slavery on
the island was again transformed as the production of this sweet commodity came
to (re)occupy a prominent role in the agricultural economy.
Slavery in Eighteenth-Century Puerto Rico
Scholars including Higman (1984:362, 374, and 396) and
Bush (1990:37) have demonstrated that slaves’ chances of survival were better
when and where sugar production was not the principal economic activity. Thus, healthier demographic regimes and more
stable family structures than those of the nineteenth century probably
prevailed among slave populations in Puerto Rico for nearly a century,
beginning around 1675. In these years,
the island entered into a period of minimal economic stress providing greater
opportunity for slaves to marry and establish family lives of their own. Access to garden plots as well as the right
to market any surplus for other goods or specie may have promoted marriage not
only among slaves, but also between slaves and free persons. Owners often set aside time and sometimes
even designated a specific day for slaves to work on these plots of land (Mintz
1984:204). Where slaves received
rations and had access to provision grounds, they usually benefitted from a
healthier and more varied diet (Cabanillas de Rodríguez 1973:358; Díaz Soler
1953:161; López Cantos 1985:151). More
importantly, slaves were permitted to bequeath freely the right to continue to
cultivate a certain piece of land for as long as the owner permitted that land
to be cultivated (Mintz 1984:209).
According to Sidney Mintz, “the slave with a better diet, a small source
of income, and a feeling of proprietorship in land was less discontented, less
likely to run away, and less dangerous as a potential rebel (Ibid:192).” To this, I would also add that slaves were
more likely to marry and/or form a family.
During the late-seventeenth and early- to
mid-eighteenth century sugar production was largely confined to San Juan, and
distinct agricultural regimes evolved on either side of the Cordillera Central
bisecting the island. Animal husbandry
and cattle ranching were combined with the export of hides in communities such
as Arecibo and Caguas to the north of this mountain ridge, and with the export
of dye and hardwoods or other cash crops like tobacco or cotton in communities
such as Coamo and Yauco to the south.
With the information gathered through family reconstitution, I have
recreated the contours of adult slave ownership as well as data on the minimum
levels of slave importation into these geographically diverse communities. Such variables influenced the likelihood of
marriage and family formation among enslaved populations.
But first a few comments on the availability of
historical records and demographic data on slavery in Puerto Rico. Such information is limited. Only one manuscript census, a household
census conducted for San Juan in the year 1673, survives from the seventeenth
century.[5] No other census was undertaken for San
Juan--or for that matter the island until 1765. While this census provides information on the age structure of
the island’s free population, it does not for the unfree population. Annual censuses were conducted from the
years 1779 through 1802, except for the year 1796. However, these do not list the age structure of the island’s free
or unfree population. Notarial records
from this period are also quite scarce, as are wills and other primary sources
which would enable us to establish the size and/or distribution of slave
populations in island communities at any point between the years 1673 through
1765. Therefore, it has been difficult
for scholars to reconstruct the demography of slaves.
Patterns of slave ownership in areas such as Arecibo,
the island leader in animal husbandry, cattle ranching, and the export of hides,
differed from those observed in areas such as Coamo, where foodstuffs were
grown along with tobacco, cotton, and later coffee and thus, the agricultural
economy was more labor-intensive. There
were few slaves in areas along the northern coast of the island, including
Arecibo and Caguas, because economic pursuits such as animal husbandry, along
with the harvest of dye and hardwoods, did not require a large labor
force. Furthermore, owners lacked
sufficient capital for the purchase of additional enslaved labor. The lives of slaves in these communities
were probably less heavily regimented and disciplined than they were in areas
along the southern coast of the island, including Coamo and Yauco, where the
cultivation of coffee and tobacco was more labor-intensive and the sizes of
slave holdings were larger.
The effects of lower labor requirements are clearly
discernable in both the smaller slave populations and the smaller size of slave
holdings in Arecibo and Caguas. For
example, slave holdings in Arecibo during the years 1708 through 1757 were
quite small, with an average size of three adult slaves in addition to any
children they might have.[6] Similar slave ownership patterns also
prevailed in Caguas; that is, there were many owners with few slaves and,
conversely, few owners with many slaves.
The slave population in that community during the years 1730 through
1765 was indeed among the island’s smallest, with the average size of holdings
only two adult slaves and any children they might have. Only a handful of masters in these
communities possessed ten or more slaves (Stark 1999:128 and 133).[7]
In contrast, the agricultural regime was more labor
intensive in communities to the south of the cordillera central such as Coamo
and Yauco due to the additional production of cash crops including tobacco,
cotton, and coffee. The distribution of
slave ownership in Coamo reflects a slight, albeit important difference in the
regional intensity of the island’s agricultural regime. For example, the average size of holdings in
Coamo during the years 1755 through 1800 was four adult slaves and any children
they might have. Coamo also had the
greatest number of owners with ten or more slaves.[8] The concentration of slaves on larger
holdings probably indicates greater reliance on the commercial production of
cash crops. Throughout the latter half
of the eighteenth century, Yauco emerged as one of the island leaders in the
cultivation of tobacco and cotton.
However, the average size of slave holdings in Yauco during the years
1751 through 1790 averaged only three adult slaves and any children they might
have (Stark 1999:139 and 143). The
largest slave holdings on the island were located in the sugar-growing area concentrated
in San Juan and its surrounding communities.
Here, we find a handful of sugar plantations worked by up to 200 slaves
(Bergad 1983:5).[9] While slave ownership throughout the island
was common, few owners possessed ten or more slaves.
Trade in slaves had flourished as long as sugar production
remained profitable for planters on the island. Levels of slave traffic to Puerto Rico declined in the
early-seventeenth century following the near collapse of sugar production. Portuguese traders were the major providers
of African slaves to the Hispanic Caribbean.
They trafficked in slaves from the Congo and the Gold Coast. Dutch traders gradually assumed a more
active role in the introduction of African slaves to Puerto Rico in the waning
years of the seventeenth century (Morales Carrión 1995:66-7) and (Picó
1986:105). Consequently, there was an
influx of slaves from the Loango region, located along the southwestern coast
of Africa (Alvárez Nazario 1974:71).
During the early years of the eighteenth century when the French
controlled the legal slave trade, slaves from Upper Guinea and the Congo river
region were introduced to Puerto Rico (Uya 1987:86). After the British assumed control of the legal slave trade in
1713, the majority of slaves brought to Puerto Rico came from the Gold
Coast. This trend continued into the
mid-eighteenth century.
It is virtually impossible to determine how many
slaves were legally or illegally introduced by the British, Dutch, or Portuguese
since most records of such transactions have been lost or destroyed (Scarano
1984:128) and (López Cantos 2000:25).[10] Nonetheless, from 1675 to 1765, low levels
of legal slave importation probably characterized the structure of
slavery. This conclusion is based on
the surviving records from the years 1710 through 1714 and 1731 through
1733. A total of 96 slaves (88 adults
and 8 boys aged 12 or younger) were legally sold in Puerto Rico between 1710
and 1714 (López Cantos 1994:113-4), while the number of Africans legally
introduced to the island between 1731 and 1733 totaled only 115 (López Cantos
1994:37). We can infer that the levels
of illegal slave importation during the early years of the eighteenth century
were also low. I base this upon the
small number of African slaves baptized in island communities selected for this
study. Because the baptismal entry in
the parish register contained
information on the individual’s legal status, it provided proof of ownership in
the case of slaves. The number of adult
slaves baptized during the years covered by this study in Arecibo, Caguas, and
Yauco averaged less than one per year, while in Coamo they averaged 2 per year
(Stark 1999:113). Prior to the liberalization
of the slave trade in the 1760s, which brought about a sizable influx of
African slaves to Puerto Rico, many planters and ranchers undoubtedly relied on
the contraband trade for increasing the size of their holdings and/or
encouraged the growth of the island’s enslaved population through natural means
by promoting marriage and family life.
The low level
of legal and illegal slave importations to Puerto Rico had a lasting impact on
the demography of slaves. Since fewer
adult African males were purchased from slave traders this helped to lessen
their imbalance with women. As the
number of women increased, so too did the proportion of children, therefore
promoting natural growth. The
transition from a predominantly African-born to a predominantly native-born
slave population also contributed to evening out the sex ratio among this
segment of island society. This
transformation of the slave population from African-born to native-born most
likely occurred during the late-seventeenth century. The possibility for natural growth continued until the second
coming of sugar, which occurred early in the nineteenth century. Moreover, the emergence of a creole majority
among slaves facilitated social cohesiveness.
Opportunities gradually evolved over the course of the eighteenth century
for a more settled family life within a larger, nascent Afro-Puerto Rican
community.
Religious Context and Social Implications of Marriage
Among Slaves
In areas of the Spanish Caribbean including Puerto
Rico where Catholicism was the officially recognized religion, slaves were
forcibly baptized into the Church.
Thus, it is difficult to gauge how well slaves in Puerto Rico were
indoctrinated with the dogma of the Catholic faith and the extent of slaves’
subsequent adherence to its tenets. The
degree of religious instruction that slaves received, as well as their
compliance with religious practices, probably varied from one parish to another
and over the course of the eighteenth century.
Some priests, such as Juan Apolinario Herrera, who served in the rural
parish of Toa Baja along the island’s northern coast during the 1750s and
1760s, were particularly attentive to the spiritual needs of their
parishioners.[11] In contrast, other clergy, such as José
Correa, who served in northwestern coastal community of Añasco from 1754
through 1767 and later in northeastern coastal community of Loíza, were
apparently overly preoccupied with their own material well-being and therefore
lax in providing the catechism as required following Sunday mass and on holy
days of obligation to slaves (Morales Muñoz 1949a:137) and (López Cantos
2000:87).[12] Owners too played a role in how well slaves
were inculcated with the beliefs of Catholicism. Often they would make it difficult for their slaves to attend
mass and receive religious instruction by forcing them to work on Sundays and
other major feast days of the Church (Morales Muñoz 1949b:249-50). The extent of slaves’ compliance with Church
norms was also contingent on the staffing of diocesan parishes and the level of
training among the island’s clergy at the time. Thus, the extent of slaves’ compliance was sometimes constrained
by factors beyond their control.
Slaves’ adherence to the customs and practices
associated with Catholicism may have been related to the proportion of Africans
comprising an area’s overall slave population.
Newly arrived African slaves probably found it difficult to create a
community of their own in which they could openly continue to practice their
own forms of religion. In such cases,
slaves may have outwardly embraced Christianity as a means of integrating
themselves into their new surroundings, while secretly continuing to worship in
their own way. The African slaves
introduced annually as a part of the trade in human cargo to the island
communities selected for this study, often spoke mutually unintelligible
languages and were of different ethnic origins. Moreover, the structure of slavery in Puerto Rico during the
years 1675 through 1765, characterized as it was by low levels of slave
importation and widely dispersed slave holdings, was probably not as conducive
to the survival or the transmission of African religious beliefs and practices
as it was later in the nineteenth century following the resurgence of sugar as
a primary export crop (López Cantos 2000:75).
Of course, some assimilation of African religious beliefs and practices
did take place. According to Angel
López Cantos (1992:11), however, it was much less common than has previously
been assumed.
Canonical marriage offered slaves tangible
benefits. Laws governing marriage among
slaves possibly encouraged formal unions among this segment of the island’s
population. For example, when two
slaves belonging to different owners married, the law stated that the husband’s
owner was obliged to purchase his slave’s wife from the other owner, along with
any of her children younger than three (Rípodas Ardanaz 1977:378-82), (Sued
Badillo and López Cantos 1986:273), (Rodríguez León 1990:45 and 54). Should the husband’s owner fail to purchase
the slave’s wife, then the wife’s owner was obliged to buy the husband. Married slaves could not be separated
through sale and neither could they be separated from their minor children. This benefit for slaves was an inconvenience
for owners, who were often reluctant to allow slaves the right to formally
legitimize their unions through marriage.[13]
The scarcity of primary sources has made it difficult
to ascertain the actual number of slave and slave/free marriages occurring
throughout the island, prompting a historiographical debate concerning the
frequency of slave marriages in Puerto Rico.
My findings show that marriages among slaves were common on the island
in the years leading up to the nineteenth-century resurgence of the sugar
industry. Referring to marriage records
consulted for this study, I found a total of 2,712 marriages, including 237 in
which one or both spouses were slaves.
Assuming that 11 percent of Puerto Rico’s population were slaves, as the
1765 census shows, it is striking that nearly 9 percent of all marriages
involved at least one slave spouse.
Thus, a significant portion of the island’s slave population married in
the eighteenth century.
Let us examine the formal union of Pedro and Francisca
as well as that of Lázaro and Agustina in order to provide greater insight into
whom slaves married, at what ages they did so, and the seasonality of slave
marriages by drawing attention to the vital statistics of slaves that can be
reconstructed through the linking of data contained in parish registers.
An Example of Two Slave Marriages
On the morning of December 29, 1793, two slave couples
were married in the Catholic church of Coamo.[14] The first couple consisted of a thirty-year
old groom named Pedro and his thirty-one year old bride named Francisca, both
of whom belonged to Juan Pacheco. The
second couple consisted of a twenty-six year old groom, named Lázaro who
belonged to Andrés de Aponte; his twenty-eight year old bride, named Agustina,
belonged to Aponte’s wife’s second cousin Juan Pacheco.[15] Although marriage among slaves was not
uncommon, it was not often that two slave couples in one community were married
on the same day.[16] Because the brides were sisters, I suspect
that they may have opted (with their owner’s approval) to be united in holy
matrimony with their spouses in a joint ceremony.
The newlyweds, the slave owners, and their respective
spouses were all born in Coamo.[17] Pedro had been baptized on February 13,
1763, at the age of 15 days. He was the
second of the two children born to Guillermo and María, a married slave couple
belonging to Francisco Pacheco.[18] Francisca had been baptized eleven months
earlier on March 23, 1762, at the age of 15 days. She was the second of the four children born to Antonia, an
unmarried slave belonging to Juan Pacheco.
In contrast, Francisca’s sister Agustina had been baptized on September
11, 1765, at the age of 15 days.[19] She was the third of the four children born
to Antonia. Lázaro had been baptized
fifteen months later on January 6, 1767, at the age of 15 days.[20] He was the second of the eight children born
to an unmarried slave named Marcela--who died on March 13, 1808 at the age of
60--belonging to Andrés de Aponte.[21] There was no record of the spouses’ fathers.
This was the first marriage for both brides and
grooms. Francisca was childless at the
time of her marriage, however, Agustina had previously given birth to two
children. Agustina’s first child named
Ignacia had been baptized on January 25, 1785 at the age of 15 days, and the
second child named Buenaventura had been baptized on July 28, 1793 at the age
of 15 days, only five months prior to Agustina’s marriage. The relatively brief interval between
Buenaventura’s birth and Agustina’s marriage to Lázaro suggests that he was
probably the child’s father.[22] It may be that the child’s survival was a
factor in Agustina’s decision to formalize her union with Lázaro, a hypothesis
that I will discuss further in greater detail.
In neither
marriage were the bride and groom related and no consanguineal or affinal
impediments requiring a dispensation were noted. Unlike Puerto Rico’s free population in which marriage among near
relations and distant cousins was common, slaves generally avoided marrying
their kin, as occurred elsewhere in the Americas (Kulikoff 1986:346-7).[23] Finally, two local citizens, José Berríos
and José Ortiz, along with the bride and groom’s owners, served as witnesses to
the marriages, which were celebrated by José Navarro, the forty-seven year old
assistant to the parish priest and a native of San Juan (Zayas León 1997:89).[24] Following the marriage ceremony, the slave
couples joined hands and pledged their fidelidad mutua, or mutual
fidelity, as the parish priest pronounced a special nuptial blessing known as
the velación. The newlyweds then
embarked on their new life together and the marriage was duly noted in the
parish register.
Spousal Selection Patterns Among Slaves
Whom did slaves marry? Most slaves in the eighteenth-century Puerto Rican communities I
examined married other slaves, as was the case of Pedro and Francisca or Lázaro
and Agustina. Approximately 60 percent
of slave grooms in this study selected slave brides, whereas 80 percent of
slave brides chose slave grooms. A
slave groom was nearly twice as likely to marry a free bride as a slave bride
was to marry a free groom. From the
male slave’s point of view, marriage
with a free woman gave slaves access to the world of peasants by providing a
means of social mobility and economic opportunity for the children, who would
be free (Metcalf 1992:166-7). Owners
probably also looked favorably upon the marriage of slave husbands and free
wives for they secured free female (and child) laborers since most of the free
persons married to slaves lived with the same master as a servant or retainer
and worked for the estate alongside their spouses (Goldschmidt
1986-7:11-2). Such marriages afforded
owners with the opportunity to maintain, if not increase, their supply of
labor.
A more vexing question involves the motives that would
influence a free man to marry a slave woman.
The answer can be found in the access to land. By the first decades of that century, a significant number of
individuals known as desacomodados, or bothersome individuals, lacked
access to land and had evolved into a restless people roaming the countryside
in search of land on which to squat (Scarano 1989:31) and (Moscoso
1999:126). Land was quite scarce along
the island’s northern coast, particularly among free persons of mixed race, who
comprised 40 percent or more of the island’s population.[25] Unrest in the fall of 1750 among
desacomodados in Manatí revealed the socially destabilizing potential of these
landless individuals. Colonial
authorities in San Juan grew increasingly alarmed at the situation and the
city’s cabildo ordered the break up of two hatos, or large land holdings
dedicated to raising livestock, and their respective criaderos, or small
land holdings dedicated to animal husbandry, in the highland sectors of Manatí
(Gíl-Bermejo García 1970:241). Over
4,800 acres of land were redistributed to 181 desacomodados (Moscoso 1999:125).[26] Some landowners faced with seasonal labor
shortages would allow the landless to live on their holdings in exchange for
occasional services. As a result,
unions of free men and slave women would be facilitated. It is quite possible that some of the free
men who married slave women were squatters whom the slave owner sought to
attach to the land out of a desire for secure labor.
Although a majority of slave marriages were between
slaves belonging to the same owner, as was the case with Pedro and Francisca,
slaves who aspired to marry or establish a family had to overcome demographic
obstacles. Nearly one-third of the
marriages between slaves in this study paired spouses who, like Lázaro and
Agustina, were owned by different masters.
For security reasons, owners probably tried to limit the social universe
of the slave to the boundaries of the slaveholding unit as occurred in
eighteenth-century Bahia, Brazil (Schwartz 1986:383). However, the relatively small size of slave holdings throughout
the island meant that slaves who sought to marry would frequently have to look
beyond the estate for potential spouses.
Slaves likely also avoided marrying first cousins, as occurred in the
late-seventeenth and early-eighteenth centuries in the Chesapeake (Kulikoff
1986:346-7). This would further reduce
the number of eligible suitors in a community’s marriage pool.
Owners probably encouraged their slaves to select a
spouse from a marriage pool restricted to those slaves belonging to other
immediate family members and relatives.
Such may have been the case when Lázaro and Agustina were married, since
their respective owners were second cousins.
Another example is the marriage of Sebastián Correa and Felipa Correa on
June 12, 1753 in Arecibo.[27] Sebastián’s owner, the priest Felipe Correa,
was the brother of Felipa’s owner, José Correa.[28] Other evidence confirms that owners
encouraged their slaves to select spouses from among slaves of near
relations. Of the 40 marriages in this
study in which slave spouses belonged to different owners, all but four involved
owners with consanguineous ties of varying degree. This information is not contained in the parish marriage
register, however, by reconstructing the genealogy of the slave owners I was
able to determine the nature of consanguineous ties between owners of slaves
who married. Nearly a third of these
marriages involved slaves whose owners were linked by ties of the first degree;
that is the owners were either siblings, a parent and child, or a parent and
son- or daughter-in-law. The marriage
of Pablo and Maria on June 14, 1785 in Coamo illustrates this point: Pablo’s
owner, María de Gracia Santiago, was the mother of María’s owner, Francisco de
Santiago.[29] Whenever a slave selected a spouse from
those of the estate or those of other immediate family members and relatives
who might be living nearby, the owner avoided the additional expense of
purchasing a slave spouse. Ownership
did not necessarily have to change and slaves could be allowed to live
together.
Of the slave marriages in this study in which the
origin of both spouses is known, nearly 70 percent paired slaves who had been
born in Puerto Rico. Ethnic preferences
among certain African groups in Puerto Rico during the eighteenth century
suggest a strong tendency to marry partners from their region of Africa if not
from the same ethnic group. The data
for the slaves of African origin in this study also shows that they tended to
marry other Africans. Because we do not
know how many Africans there were among the island’s slave populations, their
choices may well have been based not on preference but on availability. The predominance of West African slaves,
especially from Guinea among the African population probably made it easier for
such slaves to marry a spouse of similar origin. An example of one such couple is Carlos and Catalina, African
slaves from Guinea who belonged to Pedro Ximénez, and who married on July 14,
1780 in Caguas (de Castro Sedgwick 1994:12).
It should also be noted that males were over-represented in the African
slave trade, thus slave brides would have had a greater pool of African men to
chose from and were able to do so with greater frequency than slave grooms
chose African women
Some slave and slave/free marriages were the
culminations of long-term illicit relationships. For example, a total of 37, or 29 percent, of slave brides in the
communities selected for this study, were unmarried mothers. Slave brides who had previously given birth
on average had two children at the time of their marriage. Moreover, their marriage occurred 33 months,
nearly three years, after having given birth.
Survival of the infant(s) might have increased the likelihood of
marriage between single parents who had formerly lived in stable consensual
unions, as was probably the case with Lázaro and Agustina. With their children having survived the
perilous first year or two of life, when mortality posed the greatest danger,
unmarried mothers in long-term relationships may well have sought to avail
themselves of the legal protections by the Church and state afforded to them
through marriage. Families could not be
separated through sale or bequest, while marriage provided slaves with
opportunities to make their situation more tolerable.
Age at which Slaves Married
Since married slave mothers’ fertility was higher than
unmarried mothers’ age at marriage affected the number of children a woman
could have throughout her reproductive period (Rabell 1990:24). For instance, the number of children born to
married slave mothers is twice the number of children born to unmarried slave
mothers, four compared to two (Stark 1996:407). With a low level of slave importation characterizing the
structure of slavery over the course of the eighteenth century, the increase in
the island’s overall slave population may well have resulted from high levels
of marital fertility. Relatively high
death rates among both infants and adults during the colonial period suggest
that slaves in Puerto Rico likely married at young ages, as did the rest of the
island’s population, free and unfree, at the time.
Age at first marriage among slave populations was
calculated by linking information contained in the baptismal and marriage
records of these communities. This does
not allow me to determine the age at marriage for slaves of African origin or
slaves who were not born in island parishes selected for this study. Nevertheless, the age of one or both spouses
was ascertained for a total of 68 marriages in which the bride and/or the groom
were slaves. For the most part, male
slaves in eighteenth-century Puerto Rico tended to marry at an older age than
their female counterparts. The age
difference between spouses varied, with the groom typically two to six years
older than a bride. Of course, some grooms
were considerably older than their bride, as was the case of a slave belonging
to the priest Felipe Correa named Joaquín, who was 40 years old when he married
Petronila de la Rosa, a slave aged 17 years old, also belonging to Correa, on
January 22, 1759 in Arecibo.[30] Not all grooms were older than their brides,
however, as one bride in Arecibo and six in Coamo were older than their spouses
at the time of the marriage. In such
cases, the difference in ages between the spouses was less than two years, with
one notable exception, a 39 year old bride named Concesa who was 18 years older
than 21- year-old Tomás, a slave belonging to the priest Tiburcio González
Esmurra, when the two married on August 13, 1801 in Coamo.
Other patterns of behavior among slaves who married in
these communities suggest that slaves married and formed families in much the
same way as other members of society.
This includes a tendency for males to wait until they were at least 20
years old before entering into a formal union.
None of the grooms for whom the age at marriage is known in this study
are under the age of 20. Moreover,
one-third of the grooms were over the age of 30, including one groom who was
over the age of 40. One possible reason
that male slaves put off marriage is that slaves in Puerto Rico were permitted
to market the surplus produce grown in their provision grounds. Thus, males may have purposely delayed
marriage until they had acquired a few personal possessions and/or some small
animals of their own like a hog or a few chickens. Such a strategy could result in social mobility and economic
opportunity for it would provide a male slave the means to marry a free bride.
Female slaves, on the other hand, tended to marry at
younger ages than males. We see that
approximately one-third of the brides in this study are under the age of 20,
whereas none of the grooms were. For
example, the youngest bride in my sample is a slave belonging to Esteban Colón
named Juliana, who was a mere 13 years and 11 months old on March 21, 1779 when
she married in Coamo a slave named Pedro belonging to the priest Miguel
Rodríguez Feliciano.[31] Furthermore, only five brides were over the
age of 30 at the time of their first marriage; none were over the age of
40. It may have been that masters
encouraged females to marry early in order to exploit their reproductive years;
and males to marry late, in order to take advantage of their years of youthful
energy.
Seasonality of Slave Marriage
Although marriage is the one demographic event most
subject to individual human control, factors beyond peoples’ control often
determined when they married. The
observance of religious proscriptions associated with the liturgical calendar
affected the timing of marriage (Cressy 1985:4), while labor demands imposed by
the agricultural economy influenced the seasonality of marriages, especially
those of slaves (Gunn 1990:217). Formal
unions were traditionally frowned upon by the church during certain periods of
the liturgical year, including the penitential seasons of Lent and Advent.[32] According to the diocesan synod of 1645,
priests in the diocese of Puerto Rico were prohibited from administering the
special nuptial blessing, known as the velación, during Lent - which begins on
Ash Wednesday and ends on Easter Sunday - or Advent - which stretched from the
fourth Sunday preceding Christmas until Christmas Eve.[33] Because these seasons were to be marked by
abstinence and penance, couples were discouraged from consummating their
marriage if they had not performed the velación (López de Haro 1986:165), a
type of religious oath whereby the future spouses pledged their fidelity to
each other as the priest pronounced a special nuptial blessing (Ortiz 1974:87
and Quiñones Cuadrado 1974:14).
Additionally, the diocese of Puerto Rico prohibited Sunday marriage and
also discouraged the celebration of formal unions on 16 other major feast days,
when attendance at mass was required and no work was to be performed. Approximately 130-36 days, or nearly 40
percent of the calendar year, was rendered unsuitable for the celebration of
marriage.
Important dates for understanding the agricultural
calendar and assessing its impact upon the seasonality of marriage among Puerto
Rico’s slave population along the southern coast revolve around the planting
and harvesting of the principal cash crop, tobacco. Planting of this commodity over the course of the eighteenth century
was traditionally begun on August 30–the feast day of Saint Rose–when the seeds
were sown. After 45 days or so the
tobacco seedlings were replanted, usually in the month of October (Fernández
Méndez 1997:26-7). Yet not all tobacco
was planted at once. Thus, replanting was usually staggered over weeks,
even months, and often continued through the months of November and
December. The growing cycle of tobacco
was approximately four months.[34] Assuming that the tobacco crop was replanted
at the beginning of October, it would have been ready for harvest sometime in
February and gathered over the next month or so.
This study of 237 formal unions in which one or both
spouses is a slave reveals a considerable diversity in the seasonality of slave
marriages. Slave marriages in Arecibo
and Caguas were more common during the months of December and January. Work in these predominantly cattle-ranching
communities probably came to a halt at this time, except for daily tasks such
as feeding and caring for livestock. In
areas where tobacco was grown, such as in Coamo and Yauco, slave marriages were
more common during the months of April and May. Agricultural activity in these tobacco-producing communities
slowed down following the spring harvest of tobacco, allowing slaves who
aspired to marriage the opportunity to do so.
The impact of the agricultural calendar on the timing
of slave marriage in Coamo and Yauco is most apparent during the period that
stretched from October 7 through December 2, when few slaves married. During this ten-week period the tobacco crop
was sown. In fact, only two slave
marriages took place in Coamo during that period in the years 1778 through
1798. Likewise, there were only three
formal unions among Yauco’s slave population during this same period in the
years 1751 through 1790. Conversely, in
Arecibo and Caguas there were fifteen and ten slave marriages respectively
during that same ten-week period.
Slaves in eighteenth-century Puerto Rico generally
observed proscriptions on Lenten marriage.
For example, during the four-week period from February 25 through March
25, which roughly corresponds to the Lenten season, there were a total of seven
slave marriages. Moreover, three of the
seven slave marriages actually occurred in the days immediately preceding Lent. In contrast, it is likely that compliance
with the taboo on marriage during Advent varied by region and possibly waned
over the course of the eighteenth century.
Only in Arecibo do we find a dearth of marriages observed during the
two-week period stretching from December 2 through December 16, which fell
within the parameters of Advent.
In what ways do the marriages of Pedro and Francisca
as well as that of Lázaro and Agustina conform with previously discussed
spousal selection patterns? Like most
slaves in this study who were married, Pedro and Francisca belonged to the same
owner. However, the small size of slave
holdings in Coamo and elsewhere throughout the island forced a number of slaves
in this community to look beyond the estate on which they lived in order to
find a suitable spouse. Such may have
been the case with Lázaro since his master, Andrés de Aponte, only owned six or
so slaves. Agustina, on the other hand,
belonged to one of larger slave holdings in Coamo; her owner, Juan Pacheco, had
at least 22 slaves (Stark 1999:139).
Most slaves belonging to different owners who married selected a spouse
from among those of other family members and near relatives. The formal union of Lázaro and Agustina
offers evidence of this trend as their respective owners were second cousins
through marriage. Both brides and their
respective grooms were born in Coamo, thus their marriages (like many others)
paired spouses of a similar origin.
Perhaps the newlywed slave couples had known each other since
infancy. Families were often separated
or broken up through sale if the parents were not married, as was the case with
Lázaro and Agustina, when dowries were set up or when it came time for the
heirs of an estate to claim their rightful share. In so far as the age at which the couples were married, 26 and 28
years old, and 29 and 30 years old respectively, it was not common for slave
brides to be older than the slave groom.
However, the two-year or less difference in their ages was typical of those
unions in which the bride was older.
The fact that Agustina had given birth twice, the second time only five
months prior to the date of her marriage, was also not uncommon. As we can see, the marriages of Pedro and
Francisca and Lázaro and Agustina were in many ways representative of patterns
of behavior observed in other communities selected for this study.
Both Pedro and Francisca and Lázaro and Agustina were
married five days following the conclusion of Advent. Compliance with taboos on the celebration of formal unions during
this penitential season had waned by the late-eighteenth century, thus the
liturgical calendar probably did not influence the timing of their
marriage. More likely, the timing of these
marriages reflects the impact of labor demands associated with the planting and
harvesting of tobacco. As mentioned
previously, tobacco was replanted in Coamo roughly during the ten-week period
from October 7 through December 2, albeit planting sometimes continued past
this date. The timing of Pedro and
Francisca and Lázaro and Agustina’s marriage suggests that their owners grew
tobacco and that its planting in the fall of 1793 in Coamo may have continued
well into the month of December. The
brief respite from the rigors of the agricultural calendar, which also
coincided with the slower pace of work at Christmas, offered an opportunity for
slaves such as Pedro and Francisca and Lázaro and Agustina to marry.
A New Understanding of Marriage Among Slaves
A unique set of demographic circumstances and economic
conditions in Puerto Rico during the eighteenth century fostered the rise of a
more fluid society. We see evidence of
this in the frequency and nature of marriage among the island’s slave
population. Slaves who married,
especially those who wed free people of color, contributed to social stability,
which characterized relations between the free and unfree segments of the
population in the years prior to the resurgence of sugar as a primary export
product.
Most slave marriages appear to have been determined by
the slaves’ own choices; there was probably little direct intervention by
masters in the spousal selection process among the island’s slave
population. This observation is based
on the study of eighteenth-century marriage registers in Arecibo, Caguas,
Coamo, and Yauco, which reveals that only one instance (the marriages of Pedro
and Francisca and Lázaro and Agustina) in which more than one couple belonging
to the same master married in the same ceremony or on the same day. If two, three, or more slave couples
belonging to the same master had married on the same day and at the same
ceremony, this would likely have indicated the master’s direct intervention in
the selection and/or the timing of formal unions, a practice more
characteristic of the nineteenth century, following the rise in sugar
production and the concomitant upsurge of slavery.
Through the use of previously overlooked primary
sources, including parish baptismal, marriage, and death registers, this study
reveals the extent of slaves’ efforts to marry and establish families. Despite their absence or omission from the
historical record, slaves are not a people without a family history. Slaves do have a reconstructable past--their
family tree is not cut.
NOTES
[1]. The deficiency of primary sources for the study of
Puerto Rico’s colonial period is the result of various events. “Archives of the jurisdictional office of
Puerto Rico at the Audiencia de Santo Domingo were lost, the city of San Juan
was burned by the Dutch in 1625, [and] the Archivo Histórico suffered a fire in
1929.” (Silvestrini and de Castro Arroyo:157)
[2]. My use of family reconstitution and genealogy as a
tool for social history is based upon the recent work of Fernando Picó.
[3]. I have reconstituted the oldest marriage and death
registers (1750-1784) for La Tuna, known as Isabela, a community located along
the island’s north coast, and east of Arecibo.
Additionally, I have reconstituted the oldest baptismal (1763-1798),
marriage (1771-1800), and death (1764-1800) registers for Río Piedras as well
as the oldest baptismal and marriage registers (1773-1810) for Santurce. Both of these communities are located in the
vicinity of San Juan, and north of Caguas.
Furthermore, I have also reconstituted the oldest marriage and death
registers for both Juana Díaz (1787-1805) and Cayey (1776-1800), in addition to
the oldest death register for Guayama (1746-1781). Once part of Coamo, these communities border Coamo on its eastern
and western flanks respectively.
Finally, I have reconstituted San Germán’s oldest marriage (1759-1774)
and death (1762-1774) registers. This
community borders Yauco on its western flank.
The inclusion of material obtained from surviving parish registers in
bordering communities allowed me to create a much more complete and
statistically significant data base than is typically possible employing the
standard techniques of family reconstitution.
[4]. Archivo Parroquial San Blas de Coamo (hereafter
APSBC), Primer libro de matrimonios: 1778-1798, folios 150-50v.
[5]. Archivo General de Indias [hereafter AGI], Santo
Domingo 173, Ramo IV, ff. 838-852v., “Padrón del año 1673 de las personas
que hay en la ciudad de San Juan de Puerto Rico.” A complete transcription of this census appears in David M. Stark
and Teresa de Castro Sedgwick, “Padrón del año 1673 de las personas que hay en
la ciudad de San Juan de Puerto Rico: Una transcripción con introducción y
notas genealógicas,” Boletín de la Sociedad Puertorriqueña de Genealogía,
IX: 3-4 (octubre 1997): 1-113.
[6]. Adult slaves, for the purposes of this study,
include spouses of an individual in the records, parents, godparents,
witnesses, and, of course, baptized adults mentioned in the parish registers.
[7]. The largest slave holding in Arecibo during the
years 1708 through 1757 was that of Antonio de los Reyes Correa and consisted
of at least 15 slaves. Correa was
arguably northwestern Puerto Rico’s most powerful economic and political figure. Not only was he teniente a guerra, or
all encompassing civil and military leader, of Arecibo from 1700 through 1743,
he was also a military hero who in the fall of 1702 was awarded a lifetime
pension for his role in spearheading the successful defense of the community
against a British attack earlier that same year. The largest slave holding in Caguas during the years 1730 through
1765 was that of Tomás Díaz, the teniente a guerra in that community during the
1750s, and consisted of at least eleven slaves.
[8]. The largest slave holding in Coamo during the years
1755 through 1800 was that of Antonio Colón de Torres, and his wife Juliana de
Aponte, and consisted of at least 37 slaves.
The largest slave holding in Yauco during the years 1751 through 1790
was that of Fernando Pacheco, and his wife, María de Quiñones, and consisted of
at least 20 slaves. It is worth noting
that Antonio Colón de Torres and Fernando Pacheco were the tenientes de guerra
of Coamo and Yauco respectively, which goes to show how political and economic
power were often intertwined.
[9]. Manuel Díez del Barrío and his son-in-law Valentín
Martínez were probably the owners with the largest slave holdings on the island
during the late-eighteenth century.
Each was reputed to own at least 200 slaves.
[10]. According to Francisco Scarano, “No offical records
or estimates of slave imports have ever been found [for the nineteenth
century], not even for the period of legal trading before 1820.” (1986:121).
Comparable records or estimates do not exist for the eighteenth century.
[11]. Juan Apolinario Herrera was praised by Bishop Julián
de Arraiga in 1760 for the dedication shown to his priestly duties and also for
his charitable acts. “Informes
reservado de las cualidades, circumstancias, meritos, servicios y conducta de
todos los sujetos [religiosos] que ejercen empleos de todas clases en esta
provincia,”AGI, Santo Domingo 2521.
[12]. José Correa was reprimanded by Bishop Julián de
Arraiga in 1760 for participating in the contraband trade and subsequently
neglecting his parishioners. Ibid.
[13]. Examples of owners’ resistance elsewhere to slave
marriage laws can be found in (Acosta Saignes 1967: 214-18).
[14]. The original entry in the marriage register reads,
“En este Pueblo de Coamo en veinte y nueve dias del mes de Diciembre de mil
setecientos noventa y tres años Yo el infra escrito Cura teniente de esta
parroquia haviendo hecho las tres moniciones ordinarias en tres dias festivos
inter misarum solemnica segun el Sto. Concilio de Trento habiendo expresado su
mutuo consentimiento Lazaro Esclavo de Dn. Andres Aponte y Agustina esclava de
Dn. Juan Pacheco parroquianos de esta feligresia por palabras de presente que
hacen verdadero matrimonio y ante los testigos infra nominados los despose y
simul di las bendiciones nupciales haviendolos antes examinado en doctrina
cristiana y estando confesados y comulgados dhos. Contrahentes. Fueron tgos.
Josef Berrios y Josef Ortiz con otras muchas personas que se hallaron presentes
de que doy fe Josef Navarro” (My translation:
In this community of Coamo on the 29th day of December of 1793, I
the undersigned curate having proclaimed the three ordinary banns on three
festival days within solemn Mass according to the Sacred Council of Trent, and
having expressed their mutual consent Lázaro, a slave of don Andrés Aponte, and
Agustina, a slave of don Juan Pacheco, members of this parish who by the
present words make a true marriage and in the presence of the undersigned
witnesses joined the couple in marriage and simultaneously performed the
nuptial blessings having first examined them in Christian doctrine and after
they had received confession and communion. The witnesses were Josef Berríos
and Josef Ortiz, along with many others who were present, of which I give a
faithful account Josef Navarro)
APSBC, Primer libro de matrimonios: 1778-1798, folios 150-50v.
[15]. Age at marriage is not listed in the parish marriage
registers, but was calculated by linking baptismal and marital records. Andrés de Aponte’s wife was named Juana de
Rivera. Her maternal grandmother
Eugenia Pacheco and Juan Pacheco’s paternal grandmother Gerónima Pacheco de
Matos were sisters. Moreover, Eugenia
and Gerónima are siblings of Domingo Pacheco de Matos, who oversaw the spirited
defense of Guayanilla against a Dutch attack in 1703.
[16]. This was only the second time in Coamo in the years
1778 through 1798 that two slave couples were married on the same day.
[17]. Andrés de Aponte was the son of Domingo de Aponte
and Constanza de Rivera, while Juan Pacheco was the son of Juan Rodríguez
Pacheco and María Berríos Santiago.
Juan’s wife was named Rosalía Alvarado.
[18]. Francisco and Juan Pacheco were brothers.
[19]. APSBC, Primer libro de bautismos: 1701-1773, folio
121.
[20]. APSBC, Primer libro de bautismos: 1701-1773, folio
139.
[21]. Marcela died on March 13, 1808 at the age of
60. APSBC, Primer libro de defunciones:
1773-1810, folio 393.
[22]. This hypothesis is further supported by the fact
that Buenaventura’s baptismal sponsor was Pedro Pacheco - the child’s future
uncle who married Agustina’s sister Francisca five months later.
[23]. I observed only one dispensation for consanguinity
among slave marriages examined in this study.
[24]. José Berríos was married to Paula Colón. He was the son of Miguel Berríos and
Estebanía de Rivera. José Ortiz (de
Peña) never married. He was most likely
the son of José Ortiz de Peña and Petrona Figueroa.
[25]. For example, free persons of color comprised 42
percent of Puerto Rico’s total population in 1779, and comprised 44 percent in
1790. AGI Censos de población, Santo
Domingo 2302 and 2307.
[26]. Manuel Meléndez, teniente a guerra for Manatí,
agreed to the demolition of his hato and criadero named La Potrada in December
of 1750 with the stipulation that he and his sister Ana Lorenza Meléndez and
their seventeen children be granted twelve caballerías, or 200 acre
increments, (2,400 acres) of land.
However, Manuel and Ana Lorenza only received a total of six caballerías
(1,200 acres) of land. See Actas del
Cabildo de San Juan Bautista de Puerto Rico: 1730-1750, (San Juan:
Municipio de San Juan, 1949), 296-8.
[27]. Archivo Parroquial San Felipe de Arecibo, (hereafter
APSFA), Primer libro de matrimonios: 1708-1760, folio 146.
[28]. Sebastián was born on an island in the French
Caribbean. Felipa was born in Coamo and
baptized on May 15, 1712. She was the
daughter of Blas and Aldonza, who belonged to Juan Aponte Díaz, a paternal
uncle of Felipa’s owner’s wife (Stark 1992:82).
[29]. APSBC, Libro primero de matrimonios en Coamo:
1778-1798, folio 52.
[30]. The reference for Joaquín’s baptism is APSFA, Libro
primero de bautismos: 1708-1735, no. 466, while the reference for Petronila’s
baptism is APSFA, Libro segundo de bautismos: 1735-1749, folio 86v. Their marriage can be found in the APSFA,
Libro primero de matrimonios: 1708-1760, folio 175.
[31]. APSBC, Libro primero de matrimonios: 1778-1798,
folio 6v. Juliana was baptized on April
2, 1765 in Coamo. APSBC, Libro primero
de bautismos: 1701-1773, folio 114v.
[32]. Cf. Rutman, Wetherell, and Rutman 1980-1: 42. Catholicism was not the only religion to
discourage Lenten marriage; the Anglican Church also had a proscription on such
marriages.
[33]. Both Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday are movable
feast days. The earliest possible date
for Ash Wednesday is February 4, while the latest possible date is March
10. Corresponding dates for Easter vary
from March 22 to April 25. In contrast,
the penitential season of Advent stretched from the fourth Sunday preceding
Christmas--which fell between November 26 and December 2--until Christmas Eve,
December 24 (Cressy 1985:1).
[34]. “Noticias recientes solicitadas y adquiridas sobre
los tabacos de la isla de Puerto Rico ... con otras posibilidades que conviene
examinar,” AGI, Santo Domingo, 2305.
REFERENCES
Acosta Saignes, Miguel, 1967.
Vida de esclavos negros en Venezuela. Caracas: Hespérides.
Alvárez Nazario, Manuel,
1974. El elemento afronegroide en el español de Puerto Rico. San Juan.
Bergad, Laird, 1983. Coffee
and the Growth of Agrarian Capitalism in Nineteenth Century Puerto Rico.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bush, Barbara, 1990. Slave
Women in Caribbean Society: 1650-1838. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Cabanillas de Rodríguez,
Berta, 1973. El puertorriqueño y su alimentación a través de su historia (siglos
XVI al XIX). San Juan: Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña.
Cressy, David, 1985. The
Seasonality of Marriage in Old and New England. Journal of Interdisciplinary
History XVI(1):1-21.
de Castro Sedgwick, Teresa,
1994. Iglesia del Dulce Nombre de Jesús de Caguas Libro Segundo de
Matrimonios, 1774-1804, unpublished manuscript.
Díaz Soler, Luis M., 1953. Historia
de la esclavitud negra en Puerto Rico, Río Piedras: Editorial
Universitaria.
Dietz, James L., 1986.
Economic History of Puerto Rico: Institutional Change and Capitalist
Development. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fernández Méndez, Eugenio.
1997. El tabaco en nuestra historia y costumbres. San Juan: First Book
Publishing.
Gil-Bermejo García, Juana,
1970. Panorama Histórico de la Agricultura en Puerto Rico. Seville:
Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos.
Giusti Cordero, Juan A.,
1993. Puerto Rico and the Non-Hispanic Caribbean: Un reto al exclusivismo de la
historiografía puertorriqueña. In María Dolores Luque and Juan E. Hernández
Cruz (eds), Obra historiográfica de Arturo Morales Carrión, Tercera
Conferencia. San Germán: CISCLA, pp. 3-28.
Goldschmidt, Eliana, 1986-7.
A Motivaçâo Matrimonial Nos Casamentos Mistos De Escravos. Revista da
Sociedade Brasileira Pesquisa Histórica 3(1):1-16.
González Vales, Luis, 1990. Gabriel
Gutiérrez de Riva, “el terrible”: Albores del siglo XVIII Puertorriqueño y
otros ensayos. San Juan: Centro de Estudios Avanzados de Puerto Rico y el
Caribe.
Gunn, Peter A., 1990.
Productive Cycles and the Season of Marriage: A Critical Test. Journal of
Interdisciplinary History XXI(2):217-43.
Henry, Louis, 1980. Techniques
d’analyse en démographie historique. Paris: Ediciones de l’Institut
national d’études démographiques.
Higman, Barry W., 1984. Slave
Populations of the British Caribbean, 1807-1834. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Knodel, John, 1988. Demographic
Behavior in the Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kulikoff, Alan, 1986. Tobacco
and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in the Chesapeake, 1680-1800.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
López Cantos, Angel, 1975. Historia
de Puerto Rico: 1650-1700. Seville: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos.
-----, 1987. La vida
cotidiana del negro en Puerto Rico en el siglo XVIII: Alimentación. La
Revista del Centro de Estudios Avanzados de Puerto Rico y el Caribe
4:147-55.
-----, 1992. La
religiosidad popular en Puerto Rico, Siglo XVIII. San Juan: Centro de
Estudios Avanzados de Puerto Rico y el Caribe.
-----, 1994. Miguel
Enríquez: Corsario boricua del siglo XVIII. San Juan: Ediciones Puerto.
-----, 2000. Los
puertorriqueños: mentalidad y actitudes (Siglo XVIII). San Juan: Ediciones
Puerto and Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico.
López de Haro, Damián, 1986. Sínodo
de San Juan de Puerto Rico de 1645. Madrid-Salamanca: Centro de Estudios
Históricos del CSIC.
Metcalf, Alida C., 1992. Family
and Frontier in Colonial Brazil: Santana de Parnaíba, 1550-1822. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Mintz, Sidney W., 1984. Caribbean
Transformations, paperback edition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Morales Carrión, Arturo,
1995. Puerto Rico y la lucha por la hegemonía en el Caribe. Río Piedras:
Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico.
Morales Muñoz, Generoso,
1949a. Visita del Obispo [Pedro Concepción y Urtiaga] al partido y pueblo de
San Felipe en la ribera del Arecibo, 1707. Boletín de Historia
Puertorriqueña I(8):137-42.
-----, 1949b. Primera visita
pastoral del Obispo Antolino al pueblo de la ribera del Arecibo, 1750. Boletín
de Historia Puertorriqueña I(11):244-52.
Moscoso, Francisco,
1999. Agricultura y sociedad en
Puerto Rico, Siglos 16 al 18. San Juan: Instituto de Cultura
Puertorriqueña/Colegio de Agrónomos de Puerto Rico.
Ortiz, Félix M., 1974.
Análisis de los registros de matrimonios de la parroquia de Yabucoa, 1813-1850.
Anales de Investigación Histórica, I(1):43-92.
Padilla, Salvador M., 1985.
Población de Puerto Rico en el siglo XVIII. Anales 1(2):95-132.
Picó, Fernando, 1986. Historia
general de Puerto Rico. Río Piedras: Ediciones Huracán.
-----, 1997. La
reconstitución genealógica: Una herramienta para la historia social. Exegesis
9(25):1-13.
Quiñones Cuadrado, Angel,
1974. Estudio parcial de los registros del siglo XIX de la Parroquia Dulce
Nombre de Jesús del Partido de Humacao. Anales de Investigación Histórica
I(1):1-42.
Rabell, Cecilia, 1990. La
población novohispana a la luz de los registros parroquiales: Avances y
perspectivas de investigación. Cuadernos de Investigación 21:1-91.
Rípodas Ardanaz, Daisy, 1977.
El matrimonio en Indias: Realidad social y regulación jurídica. Buenos
Aires: FECC.
Rodríguez León, Mario, 1990. Los
registros parroquiales y la microhistoria demográfica en Puerto Rico. San
Juan: Centro de Estudios Avanzados de Puerto Rico y el Caribe.
Rutman, Darrett, Charles
Wetherell & Anita H. Rutman, 1980-1. Rhythms of Life: Black and White
Seasonality in the Early Chesapeake. Journal of Interdisciplinary History
XI:29-53.
San Miguel, Pedro, 1988. El
mundo que creó el azúcar: Las haciendas en Vega Baja, 1800-1873. Río
Piedras: Ediciones Huracán.
Scarano, Francisco A, 1984. Sugar
and Slavery in Puerto Rico: The Plantation Economy of Ponce, 1800-1850.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
-----, 1989. Congregate and
Control: The Peasantry and Labor Coercion in Puerto Rico Before the Age of
Sugar, 1750-1820. New West Indian Guide 63(1&2):23-40.
Schwartz, Stuart B., 1986. Sugar
Plantations in the Formation of Brazilian Society: Bahia, 1550-1835.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Silvestrini, Blanca &
María de los Angeles de Castro Arroyo, 1981. Sources for the Study of Puerto
Rican History: A Challenge to the Historian’s Imagination. Latin American
Research Review XVI(2):156-63.
Stark, David M., 1992. Libro
primero de bautismos para Coamo, Puerto Rico: 1701-1722, Mimeo.
-----, 1996. Discovering the
Invisible Puerto Rican Slave Family: Demographic Evidence from the Eighteenth
Century. Journal of Family History 21(4):396-418.
-----, 1999. “Family Life of
Salves in Puerto Rico: Demographic Evidence from the Eighteenth-Century,” PhD.
diss., Indiana University.
Sued Badillo, Jalil &
Angel López Cantos, 1986. Puerto Rico Negro. San Juan: Editorial
Cultural.
Uya, O.E., 1987. African
Diaspora and the Black Experience in New World Slavery. New Rochelle, NY:
Third Press Publishers.
Wessman, James W., 1980. The
Demographic Structure of Slavery in Puerto Rico: Some Aspects of Agrarian
Capitalism in the Late Nineteenth Century. Journal of Latin American Studies
12(2):271-89.
Zayas
León, Else, 1997. Clero Nativo. Boletín de la Sociedad Puertorriqueña de
Genealogía IX: (1-2):82-97.