In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Beyond the day-to-day behavior of those engaged in the food trade, and beyond the devastating and specific impact on them of a many-months-long war, there are questions about the government’s role in regulating the economy, about ideology, and about notions of justice and equity that directly affected those traders and the wider consuming public. As merchants and political leaders argued about rules for supplying essential provisions, their debates, both before and after the war, exposed differing views on the nature of a good society, on ethical behavior, and on the appropriate role of government. Having begun this book by concentrating on the traders, here I broaden the reach of my concern to encompass the polity. By the end of the eighteenth century a number of Salvadoreans were questioning the validity of inherited paternalist values as they applied to the role of government. Up to that point the king had been seen as the ultimate protector of the public from rapacious middlemen , and governors and city councilmen were understood as his deputies in this task. Gradually some turned to a new liberal philosophy, one that urged government authorities to refrain from setting restrictions on self-reliant individuals in their business transactions, leaving consumers to fend for themselves. This ideological shift occurred by fits and starts. The novel paradigm at first attracted only intellectuals and a few bureaucrats schooled in political economy. But eventually city councilmen—abetted by the demands of cattle dealers , grocers, boatmen, and other merchants large and small—became converts. Governors, journalists, and traders were all swept up in the debate as specific liberal measures were discussed, implemented, forgotten or rescinded, and then reimposed. I here explore the outlines Chapter 10 meat, manioc, and adam smith Graham-final.indb 172 Graham-final.indb 172 6/30/10 10:33:08 AM 6/30/10 10:33:08 AM meat, manioc, and adam smith 173 of the older, conservative viewpoint before turning to a discussion of economic liberalism up to the 1820s. paternalism Paternalism formed the webbing that held in place the pieces of a hierarchical social structure. As late as 1810 Prince-Regent João, even as he explained an economically liberal measure to the “People,” said it would be “a new proof not only of the love I bear toward you as a good father, but also that . . . the interests of my subjects, always present to my eyes, deserve the attention of my paternal care.”1 As good fathers, he and others in analogous positions also had to discipline and punish. Grown men and women were imagined as children before them. Yet central to the father’s role was the expectation that the poorest and weakest would be protected from exploitation because, to maintain a ranked order, it must be seen as just. Such behavior, or the expectation and approval of such behavior, was woven through the very texture of society. The operative law on city councils in the Portuguese empire, as was true in Spanish America, stated that city councillors had a duty to do everything possible so that “inhabitants may live well,” and royal governors justified a measure by saying it would lead to “the common benefit of the people of this city.”2 Deviations from the ideal were no doubt all too frequent, and it is easy today to dismiss as hypocrisy the rationale then presented for certain governmental actions; nonetheless, the taken-for-granted notion of what good government meant included not only benevolence and mercy, but also a sheltering stance on behalf of common people to protect them from any abuse. Paternalism was joined at the hip to hierarchy. These understandings provided a powerful incentive for municipal officials to ensure that the populace received an adequate supply of unspoiled food at an accessible price. They did this not by providing it, but by making and enforcing rules for the suppliers who did. People understood that an unregulated food market opened the way for the devious, the unscrupulous, the greedy, and the oppressive, and, if left to their own devices, all those who traded in food would be tempted even to cause a famine if they could profit from it. Although all businesspeople by the very nature of their activity had profit as their only goal, the food trade required special supervision because life itself deGraham -final.indb 173 Graham-final.indb 173 6/30/10 10:33:08 AM 6/30/10 10:33:08 AM [3.15...

Share