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

The Kingdom of Guatemala emerged from a decade of unprecedented local, regional, and imperial turmoil in the spring of 1818 with no signi ¤cant changes to its political, social, and economic infrastructure. As in April 1808 a well-established, peninsular-dominated bureaucracy administered Central America for an absolutist Spanish king. As in 1808 this government operated more or less in concert with an entrenched creole oligarchy that held most of the economic and social power on the isthmus. As in 1808 the colony still suffered from a severe economic depression caused by the collapse of its traditional export markets during the Napoleonic wars. Yet, as in 1808 the kingdom as a whole showed no signs of wavering in its loyalty to the crown or challenging its colonial status. Although the traditional order seemed ¤rmly entrenched at the time that Captain General Bustamante gave up power, the ¤rst two decades of the nineteenth century did witness social unrest and the ¤rst signs of the political divisions that would dominate the region’s postindependence history. Yet, while speci¤c examples of frustration and antagonism toward various aspects of the colonial order could be found among all levels of Guatemalan society—grievances that in certain instances led to the outbreak of armed insurrection—no broad consensus emerged either among social groups or between them to press for a break with Spain. In most cases, the demands of those who participated in the upConclusion José de Bustamante and the Preservation of Empire risings of this period were limited and easily accommodated by the crown. In more complicated situations, such as San Salvador, the movements tended to break down quickly as a result of the con®icting interests and expectations of those involved. Colonial society at this time was remarkably fragmented, and this factor contributed greatly to the preservation of Spanish rule. The crown cultivated its role as mediator between social groups and guarantor of peace, and in the Kingdom of Guatemala, surrounded by bloody and devastating race and class wars occurring in Haiti, New Spain, and Venezuela, this message carried more weight than the call for independence. Still remarkably cohesive and in®uential, the Guatemala City creole elite remained at the top of the kingdom’s social pyramid, jealously guarding its sources of power and prestige. Anxious for reforms that would consolidate its position and expand its in®uence, the oligarchy, nevertheless, was primarily a conservative force and a bastion of support for the colonial order—so long as Spain could be counted on to defend its interests. The elite suffered greatly at the hands of Bustamante for advocating autonomy and challenging the authority of the captain general, but it showed no signs of deserting the crown en masse during this tumultuous period. Instead, it worked within the system for the removal of the controversial governor and recovered its privileged status with the arrival of the more moderate, pliable Carlos de Urrutia. While the Guatemalan oligarchy struggled to maintain its traditional position, the political, social, and economic transformations of the late Bourbon period did have a radicalizing impact on two increasingly differentiated social groups in the upper levels of colonial society: the provincial elite and the professional classes. Through the implementation of intendancies, the Bourbon reforms helped foster a degree of provincial self-awareness that would become a major source of political instability during the 1810s and would not diminish for many decades. To a great extent, the uprisings in San Salvador and Nicaragua can be seen as expressions of this trend, one that appeared as an urge to reduce dependency on Guatemala City more than on Madrid. Undoubtedly, the shortterm indigo boom in San Salvador contributed to the growing sense of regional sentiment, as did the constitutional measures that brie®y separated Nicaragua from the political oversight of Guatemala in 1813. It is signi¤cant, however, that provincial unrest diminished after 1814 and 214 Conclusion would not reemerge until the restoration of the Cádiz constitution in 1820 and the arrival of the Plan de Iguala in 1821. Honduran, Nicaraguan , Salvadoran, and Costa Rican landowners and merchants feared the consequences of social anarchy and lower-class mobilization as much as their Guatemalan cousins. Until Spain demonstrated its inability to defend their interests in Central America and preserve order, the kingdom ’s elites proved unwilling to gamble on independence. The group most affected by the revolutionary ideology of the period and the liberal experiments of the Spanish loyalist governments was that of the professionals...

Share