The Shadow of Barbosa: Reexamining Historical Memory of Early Twentieth-Century

1

2

Introduction

Jose Celso Barbosa is important. In Puerto Rican history he is known as the father of

Puerto Rican statehood, as a prócer,1 and the undisputed rival to Luis Muñoz Rivera, leader of

what became known as autonomism and father to the first elected . I

knew this going into my research on political history during Puerto Rico’s colonial transition, but

as I immersed myself in the island’s history I was unable to build a strong image of Barbosa in

my mind despite his many appearances in the literature. The key facts were there-that he was a

leading figure, highly educated, of humble origins, and nearly universally respected, but I wasn’t

seeing him nor hearing his voice. I was seeing his memory, his shadow. Despite the appearance of his name in books, histories and discussions of the time, he maintains a ghostly presence in popular and intellectual debates. I thus set out to historicize the place Barbosa occupies in Puerto

Rican history, particularly his comparative marginalization vis-à-vis his rival Muñoz Rivera.

During my research I worked in the collections at the University of Puerto Rico in Rio

Piedras. I drove there on many mornings on the Avenida Baldorioty de Castro to a bridge that took me to Rio Piedras and the connecting highway. After a few minutes on the highway, I exited to an off-ramp and reached a stop light that hasn’t worked since at least late 2017. While I waited for my opportunity to merge into the lane alongside the cars crawling into the bisecting avenue, I always glanced at the upside-down, spray painted street sign that labeled this avenue as

Avenida Barbosa. As soon as I saw an opening, I pounced to veer into the lane and drive up the avenue until I could glimpse the university. Passing-down bookstores and midcentury architecture I reached the main entrance of the university, several blocks parallel to Avenida

Barbosa. There I saw the old façade of the university and its clock tower, with gates opening to

1 Similar to a “Founding Father” or “National Hero.” 3

the Avenida Universidad perpendicular to Avenida Ponce de Leon running the length of the

universities front. The University gates almost stared down the Avenida Universidad; past student dorms, bookstores and trendy restaurants to the prominent Highway 1, the Avenida Luis

Muñoz Rivera that runs parallel to the Avenida Barbosa.

Roads are important in that they represent the honored past and industrial progress for

Puerto Rico.2 The naming and purpose of roads serves to physically demonstrate the construction of historical memory as both a national and cultural project. The Avenidas named after Barbosa and Muñoz Rivera speak to the perceived relationship between these men, as does their relative

positioning. Avenida Muñoz Rivera was built first, and it leads into the main entrance of the

university, extending past the main commercial areas and into Old San Juan where it intersects

with Avenida Baldorioty de Castro.3 Running though the city’s commercial center, this Avenida

symbolizes the preeminence of Muñoz Rivera as a liberal leader and his connection to capitalist progress. On the other hand, Avenida Barbosa is nestled between parking lots and partially maintained greenery before continuing to Barrio Obrero, a poorer working class neighborhood, speaking to his connection to the working class. The juxtaposition of these two roads demonstrates the position of Barbosa in Puerto Rican history, and its distinct politicization in the twentieth century.

His memory went through various phases of politicization from his death in 1921 to the present. In the decades immediately following his death, he was recognized as a leader on par with his rival Munoz Rivera in public discourse and popular culture.4 However, as the

2 Arcadio Díaz Quiñones, La Memoria Rota (San Juan, P.R.: Huracán, 1996), 34. 3 Baldorioty de Castro is the undisputed liberal leader of the late Spanish period in Puerto Rico. He is responsible for the liberal and the transition from pursuing assimilation as an equal province into to Autonomy under Spanish governance. 4 Carmen Marrero, El pensamiento de José Celso Barbosa (Hato Rey, P.R.: Esmaco, 1976). 4

relationship between the and Puerto Rico became more established yet remained

colonial, the focus of politics shifted towards discussing the “status question.” This political shift

necessitated a reimagining of the Puerto Rican identity and the foundations of political

legitimacy. The politicization of Barbosa’s memory grew particularly potent following battles over Puerto Rico’s political status in the 1960s. At this time the three modern parties and their respective status proposals; autonomism, statehood and independence, were beginning to take on

their modern form. The status question came to be the central issue of the political realm and the

most distinguishing feature between the three parties. The greatest sources of this politicization

were the PPD5 autonomists and nationalist independence factions during the popular and

academic nation building project following the 1952 constitution. As a result, Barbosa

disappeared from the historiography: his politics did not fit the assumptions underpinning Puerto

Rico's relationship with the United States, and the dominant beliefs on the fundamental nature

and course of the Puerto Rican people at the time.

In this thesis, I argue that Barbosa and his contemporaries have been silenced in the

Puerto Rican historiography due to the political developments over the last century that turned to

history as a means of legitimization. Following the political shift towards a focus on status, and

given the political dominance of the PPD, who claimed the mantle of autonomism, Barbosa was

a threat to the PPD elite’s legitimacy. Barbosa and his ideology undermined many of the

assumptions of the PPD state, including their views on capitalist progress, political participation

and national identity while providing an alternative definition for autonomism and liberalism.

Here I seek to understand Barbosa’s political vision in the context of his time: a moment

in which Puerto Rico was undergoing radical changes in their relationship with Spain via liberal

5 Partido Popular Democrático 5 victories, where labor was beginning to organize, and new ideas were entering the island from the US, and the Atlantic world. Most fundamentally, in the early twentieth century figures like Barbosa were engaged in an intense debate over Puerto Rico’s future that was not solely restricted to the status question. This represented a moment of possibility in which the question was not whether independence, “autonomy” or statehood were possible, but rather how to define those terms in relation to Puerto Rico’s possible futures. Jose Celso Barbosa offers a particularly revealing point of entry onto the many other questions that informed such debates, from workers’ rights to education and democratization. He seems to contradict so much of what often defines the moment, being pro-urban, black and an advocate for statehood as opposed to the narrative of steady progress to the modern Puerto Rico. He is proof of an alternative. Proof that this moment between annexation in 1898 and the late 1910s is not simply a moment of transition, linearly moving to the 1950s, but instead a moment of possibility in which Puerto Rico was faced with a wide array of possibilities and options, stemming from both local and Federal choices.

Historiography and Nation Formation through Historical Memory

In 1898, the United States went to war with Spain and acquired their remaining colonial possessions in Puerto Rico and the Pacific Ocean. This marked the end of Spanish rule on the island, and was embraced by many as a new opportunity for Puerto Rico to continue their liberal projects. They had only just gained autonomy under Spain in the months before the war, where they maintained representation in the Spanish legislature, but enjoyed control over trade and tariffs as well as local governance via their elected legislature. This was the culmination of over a decade’s worth of effort on the part of elite creole leadership to establish a more favorable local government. The transition in 1898 represented a divergence, but there was a clear continuity in

6

leadership and ideologies past 1898, as well as a faith that annexation into the United States

could mark the end of colonialism on the island.

These late nineteenth-century debates within Puerto Rico’s political class echo earlier conversations in other parts of post-colonial Latin America. Across the region, independence from Spain during the early nineteenth century tended to represent the victory of creole and liberal advocates against peninsulares6 and Spanish loyalists. From these struggles emerged the leaders and ideas that would serve as the backbone of post-independence political leadership

with the collapse of Spanish hegemony.7 However, in Puerto Rico, there is no post- independence, no revolutionary armed struggle, and not even a clear anti-colonial victory.

Instead, these leaders based their legitimacy on short lived political achievements under Spain

and claims to representing true liberalism.

Liberalism as an ideology and political movement has a certain obviousness to it.

Liberals want to expand individual freedom, are forward looking, and stand in contrast to

conservatives. Under Spain this liberal vs conservative dichotomy worked well and liberals,

despite differences, sought to unify for common goals. However, in the decades following

annexation, peninsulares and Spanish loyalists seemed to have evaporated from the

historiography. Suddenly, every political leader was a liberal and the struggle for legitimacy was

one to become the heir of liberalism in the new era. The most relevant parties of the time were

led by liberal leaders Barbosa and Muñoz Rivera.8 This characterized the struggle until around

6 The class of citizens in the New World that were born in the Metropolis and migrated to the colonies. Generally associated with mercantile interests and conservatism, since many benefited and controlled the colonial apparatus to the detriment of local creole elite. 7 David A. Sartorius, Ever Faithful: Race, Loyalty, and the Ends of Empire in Spanish Cuba (Durham: Duke University Press, 2013), 10–11; Sarah C. Maza, Thinking about History, 2017, 54. 8 Marrero, El pensamiento de José Celso Barbosa, 26. 7

1917 with the Jones Act9 and the deaths of Muñoz Rivera and Barbosa in 1916 and 1921 respectively. The Jones Act solidified the colonial relationship between Puerto Rico and the US, making statehood less likely and seriously limiting the political landscape for the then liberals.

This resulted in decades of political formation under increasing US control and conflict between populists, nationalists, socialists and liberals. During this time leaders were forced to adopt new narratives to legitimize their political positions since the dominance of liberal ideals, carried over

from the late-Spanish period, was giving way to new ideologies that sought to confront the new

political reality. Most importantly, they were attempting to define and build a nation within the

context of new and uncertain colonial relationship. This struggle was primarily undertaken by

advocates of “autonomy” and independence.10

The critical moments in the creation of the modern Puerto Rico came with the election of

1940, in which the PPD gained power, and 1952, when the Puerto Rican constitution was ratified. The PPD became the dominant party s and the standard bearer of autonomism and, therefore, liberalism.11 During this time, a model of autonomy which I call PPD autonomism,

emerged from the efforts of the technocratic elite that governed the island. At that moment, the

United States began to diminish their direct political role on the island, leaving it open to acceptable Puerto Rican candidates. This structure continues on to the present in the form of the current Free Associated State of Puerto Rico.12 The PPD elite legitimized the new interpretation

of autonomy via paternalistic nation building projects that came to use history and culture as part

of their efforts.13

9 The Jones Act is a modification of the civilian government of Puerto Rico under the control of the US Congress. Under the bill gained US citizenship, a more robust legislature and greater separation of power alongside an empowered elected legislature and senate under a US appointed Governor. 10 Díaz Quiñones, La Memoria Rota, 56–59. 11 Díaz Quiñones, 25. 12 Abbreviated to ELA as a Spanish Acronym. 13 Díaz Quiñones, La Memoria Rota, 28. 8

During the consolidation of PPD power, there was an all-encompassing focus on the

future and progress. The past became another world, irrelevant in their pursuit of a new future.

Only the vaguest claims to continuing the liberal movement of the late 19th century persisted, and

these did not represent the backbone of party’s legitimacy.14 During this time the Puerto Rican

people were developing so that they could exist in a “symbiotic” relationship with the United

States, where “everyone” believed they were marching together under the direction of an intellectual, technocratic vanguard to a future of capitalism and increasing productivity. The próceres had no real role in their present or their future.15

This was not an absolute silence, and to this day there has been excellent scholarship on

labor movements, political developments and the ideologies and legacies of various próceres.

However, the long silence created a disconnect between the early years of US colonialism and

the “Bootstrap” generation of the 50s and 60s. This discontent made politicization easier since

there wasn’t a strong alternative interpretation or a dominant memory in the minds of the people

to counter the new constructed narrative.16 Those elite that could refute the narrative would not

because they mostly cooperated with the PPD project, or later opposed it along different

ideological lines.17 It was not until the later resurgence of pro-independence sentiments among

the intelligentsia that both sides, the PPD autonomists and the increasingly nationalist

intelligentsia, armed themselves with the rhetoric of history. This included fabricated images of

the próceres, to strengthen their claims to legitimacy.18

14 Díaz Quiñones, 33. 15 Díaz Quiñones, 63; Díaz Quiñones, 20–21, 27; Díaz Quiñones, 24. 16 Pilar Barbosa de Rosario, La politica en dos tiempos: “aletofobia,” Obra de José Celso Barbosa ; 8 (San Juan de Puerto Rico: Editorial La Obra de Jose Celso Barbosa, 1978), 9–10. 17 Díaz Quiñones, La Memoria Rota, 40. 18 Díaz Quiñones, 41–42. 9

Muñoz Rivera became the greatest example of this. He served as a promising link between the pro-autonomy PPD of the 50s and the liberal legacy of Puerto Rico for two reasons.

First, Muñoz Rivera has been widely associated with his pragmatism by organizing the Sagastine

Pact in 1897 that promised Puerto Rico increased economic and political autonomy from Spain in return for subsuming the regional Puerto Rican autonomy party into the national liberal party.19 This ideal of both cooperation with the metropolis and pursuit of reasonable goals under

elite leadership fit well with the technocratic tendencies of the PPD government.20 Second,

Muñoz Rivera is the father of Muñoz Marín, the leader of the PPD and first elected governor of

Puerto Rico in 1947. The father-son relationship creates a simple indisputable connection to the

past without losing focus on the future. This creates a clear connection between the past and

present while not focusing on tradition or the past, since PPD legitimacy was based on material

progress and escaping the poverty of the past.21 Therefore, the autonomists flocked to Muñoz

Rivera and held him up as the connecting thread between the liberalism of the Spanish period and their present. However, his memory was largely detached from his political context and much of the nuance and conflict that defined autonomism was stripped away.

The generación del 30 provided much of the cultural context in which the PPD political and historiographical narrative was being constructed. These intellectuals defined Puerto Rico

within the colonial context as a reclamation of Puertorican-ness from American imperialism.22

This view of an intrinsic Puerto Rican character linked to the Hispanic past became increasingly

popular. Therefore, the PPD autonomists attempted to co-opt the narrative and claimed the

19 Gonzalo F. Córdova, Luis Sánchez Morales: Servidor Ejemplar, 1. ed (Santurce, P.R. : San Juan, P.R: Obra de José Celso Barbosa y Alcalá ; Editorial Académica, 1991), 43–44. 20 Díaz Quiñones, La Memoria Rota, 56. 21 Díaz Quiñones, 33–34. 22 Miriam Jimenez-Roman, “Un Hombre (Negro) Del Pueblo: José Celso Barbosa and the Puerto Rican ‘Race’ towards Whiteness,” in Race, Front and Center: Perspectives on Race among Puerto Ricans, ed. Carlos Vargas- Ramos, 1st ed. (NYC, NY: Centro Press, 2016), 20. 10

Jíbaro as their symbol while scrubbing the nationalist elements from the narrative.23 Barbosa’s

version of liberalism did not coexist with the vision of Puertorican-ness as defined by the

generación del 30, nor the political ends of the pro-independence or pro-autonomy faction.

Barbosa envisioned an urban, mixed-race and citizen-led republic, whereas the idealized Puerto

Rican captured in the Jíbaro was rural, Hispanic (i.e. vaguely whiter and less African) and often seen as an unfortunate victim. Therefore, Muñoz Rivera emerged as the heir of liberalism for both the PPD and nationalists because of his struggle for autonomy under Spain, his success with the Autonomy Bill of 1897, and his mixed politics under the United States that allowed him to be interpreted as both pro “autonomy” and harboring nascent nationalist sentiments.24

As I suggested in my opening discussion of Puerto Rican roads, both literally and

symbolically Barbosa is relegated to secondary status in this history, characterized primarily as

the rival of Muñoz Rivera. Where historians do provide a more in depth discussion, it has often

been in the spirit of deconstructing Muñoz Rivera’s and the PPD’s claims to legitimacy. In them

they often seek to legitimize and arm arguments for statehood or against PPD autonomism as

opposed to creating organic perspectives of the early period of “transition” and the strain of

liberalism Barbosa represented. (Cordova, Negron-Portillo, Ramos Mendez) They do this by

attacking the narrative that Muñoz Rivera was the successor of liberalism in arguing Barbosa represents a purer continuation of liberalism.25

23 The Jíbaro is a rural inhabitant of the island who is popularly idealized to capture a true, uncorrupted Puerto Rican identity. However, it is also looked down upon as a backwater and poor individual, and often used as an insult to those not from the urban centers. Serves as the symbol of the PPD. 24 Francisco A. Scarano, Puerto Rico: Cinco Siglos de Historia, Third Edition (San Juan: McGraw-Hill Interamericana, 2008), 468; José A. Calderón Rivera, La Pluma Como Arma : La Construcción de La Identidad Nacional de Luis Muñoz Rivera (Santurce, P.R.: Análisis, 2010), xiii–xiv. 25 Córdova, Luis Sánchez Morales, 48–49; Mario Ramos Mendez, Posesión del ayer: la nacionalidad cultural en la estadidad, Coleccion Visiones y cegueras (San Juan, P.R.: Isla Negra Editores, 2007), 13, 23; Barbosa de Rosario, La politica en dos tiempos, 11. 11

In reality, post-Spanish liberal leaders derived legitimacy from past political struggles

and victories. Both Barbosa and Munoz Rivera can claim to be inheritors of the liberal tradition

of the late-Spanish period since both were actively interpreting and confronting the moment after

1898 through their distinct liberal lenses. At this time both leaders, and even a majority people,

were optimistic.26 They lived within the context of the triumph of autonomism in the Autonomy

Bill of 1897, demonstrating the power of liberalism in their acquisition of rights from a distant

metropolis. Similarly, the United States seemed like a better metropolitan center since the United

States had not enjoyed a traditional empire. Instead they demonstrated a long legacy of integrating territories into the Union as states. Therefore, the colonial relationship that most take as given in later political theory was not yet in place and there was an active negotiation on both sides.

As a result of this, Barbosa represented a historically viable alternative ideology to what became the dominant manifestation of autonomism. His vision is not necessarily superior to

Muñoz Rivera’s or his rivals. Instead, it is one interpretation of liberalism and the political legacies of the 19th century that was developed to face the challenges of the time. It helped

envision what Puerto Rico’s future could look like. This plurality of liberalisms and open

dialogue is proof that the moment between annexation in 1898 and the Jones act in 1917 is not

simply a moment of transition as is implied in the dominant historiographic narrative. Instead it

represents a rapidly changing political and social landscape where the status question was one of

many questions facing the Puerto Rican people and elite.

In understanding what these choice were and what informed them, I can better present the

moment in which they were made and move the history away from its current interpretation that

26 Maria Dolores Luque, “Los conflictos de la modernidad: la elite politica en Puerto Rico, 1898-1904,” Revista de Indias Revista de Indias 57, no. 211 (1997): 709. 12

feeds into the dominant political discourse. This begins by revisiting the political world in which

Barbosa was formed and in which he acted, alongside the political legacies of the time and how they lived on into the twentieth century. This context provided legitimacy and a guiding force for both Muñoz Rivera and Barbosa.

Barbosa and his Political Context: Break of the Liberal Coalition.

The most readily apparent facet of Barbosa’s political system was his advocacy for becoming a US state. However, much of the existing academic work on Barbosa, especially the work of Gonzalo Cordova, Pilar Barbosa de Rosario, and Miriam Jimenez-Roman, shows that his interpretation of liberalism opposed the elitist model of liberalism of his peers.27 The status question was not the central facet of his ideology and more the logical result of certain deeply held beliefs. Therefore, understanding both where his ideals come from and the manifestation of his ideals into politics will allow me to better represent the moment and pierce through the politicization of the past. In doing so, I outline the fundamental cause of the 1897 split in the

Puerto Rican Autonomist party, in a struggle between pragmatism and ideology.

Jose Celso Barbosa was born in 1857 to Hermógenes Barbosa, a mason, and Carmen

Alcalá, an immigrant from Venezuela. Among the lower class, the Barbosa family enjoyed some wealth before Hermógenes was forced to become a mayordomo, or steward, as the economic situation changed. Despite these difficulties, Barbosa entered the Seminario Jesuíta de Puerto

Rico in 1870, becoming its first mixed race graduate in 1875. The process proved difficult for

27 Interestingly enough, whenever I discuss my Thesis with my elders who aren’t directly involved in Academia or education, they give me an odd look and seem to think the topic is not worth pursuing. One in particular simply described him as a “crazy old leftist statehood advocate.” 13

him, since he experienced discrimination from both his peers and teachers, being unable to fully

integrate and singled out by his professors.28

At the Seminario, Barbosa received an education in language, rhetoric and the sciences,

but he also gained experience with political turmoil. The First Spanish Republic was declared in

1873 with the abdication of the then monarch, Amadeo I. Following this, slavery was abolished

in PR, marking the first steps in the islands political evolution and its first liberal victory.

Freedom of speech, association, education, religion and expanded suffrage, among other rights

followed.29 All of these newly recognized and expanded freedoms flowed from the emergent

Spanish Republic, but, in the eyes of Puerto Rican liberals, they were not simply gifts from

above. These were the result of their own work and struggle, the culmination of their efforts.

Specifically, they were the result of the ten Puerto Rican delegates at the vote to end slavery and

declare the Spanish republic.30

In this moment, the importance of representation became clear. The small island of

Puerto Rico, which had struggled to gain equal representation in the Spanish legislature,

exercised the ability to fundamentally sway the direction of empire’s future. The eventual failure

of the republican experiment and the following crackdown only strengthened Barbosa’s belief in

democracy and instilled in him a deep distrust of monarchical politics and its illiberal policies.31

Having graduated from the Jesuit Seminary and, unlike most of his compatriots, lacking

the finances to pursue an education in , Barbosa boarded a sugar freighter headed to New

York City.32 After completing his education at Fort Edwards in 1877, he enrolled at the medical

28 Pilar Barbosa de Rosario, De Baldorioty a Barbosa: historia del autonomismo puertorriqueno, 1887-1896, Obra de JoséCelso Barbosa ; v. 5 (San Juan de Puerto Rico: Imprenta Venezuela, 1957), 70–72. 29 Barbosa de Rosario, 75. 30 Barbosa de Rosario, 74. 31 Barbosa de Rosario, 77. 32 Barbosa de Rosario, 80–81. 14 school in the University of Michigan. In 1880, he would graduate at the top of his class, the first

Puerto Rican (and, moreover, Afro-Puerto Rican) to complete his studies there.33 During his time in the United States he was deeply impacted by elements of American political culture, such as their free press, the cooperative efforts of the working class, and what he viewed as an enlightened “public opinion.” Barbosa came to believe that it was these institutions that allowed the United States to operate as a liberal democracy and foster prosperity.34 He brought these ideas back with him to Puerto Rico upon graduation.

In the historiography there is a relatively linear development in the history of liberalism until 1898 when the split between the Puerto Rican liberals under Barbosa and Muñoz Rivera became final. It starts with the Constitución de Cádiz in 1812 and the struggle for representation against Spanish colonial interests until the clear split in 1897.35 However, in reality there was an active debate among liberals. The split is a continuation of the debates that had been occurring in

Puerto Rico for decades, as liberals had only “decided” on autonomism after 1887 with the

Ponce Constitution, an agreement between Puerto Rican liberals to found the Puerto Rican

Autonomist party. Therefore, just as the struggle between Barbosa and Muñoz Rivera was a struggle to define autonomism and liberalism in the 20th century, the struggles of the 19th century were to define liberalism and what that means for the relationship with the metropolis.

Before the victory of autonomism, the status debate was autonomy vs assimilation. The latter sought to integrate Puerto Rico as a full province into the Spanish nation. However, decades of disillusionment and developments in liberalism resulted in liberals coalescing under the banner of autonomism. Afterwards, there was a divide between those who supported the

33 Barbosa de Rosario, 83. 34 Barbosa de Rosario, 91. 35 Scarano, Puerto Rico; Barbosa de Rosario, La politica en dos tiempos, 11. 15

Cuban vs the Canadian model of autonomism,36 (the main difference being representation in

Spanish legislature or no representation with greater autonomy).

Barbosa was firmly in favor of the Cuban model. He, being influenced by the Spanish

republicans and being a staunch republican in his own right, believed that Puerto Rico needed

greater separation from the metropolitan center. Puerto Rico was nominally a province but they

remained subject to the arbitrary powers of the Spanish political establishment. However, in

Barbosa’s eyes the Spanish people themselves suffered from a similar problem as they were

subject to a centralizing monarchy.37 Therefore, pursuing complete equality to other provinces, or integration, was tantamount to accepting monarchical and illiberal rule. However, Barbosa was similarly unwilling to lose representation in the legislature. Otherwise, Spain would maintain certain control over Puerto Rico, as the UK did with Canada, and Puerto Rico would lack the means of combating this control.38 This would effectively make Puerto Rico a colony,

and any colonial relationship, no matter how autonomous, was unacceptable.39 This sort of

relationship would serve to strengthen the elite by maintaining traditional relationships with the

metropole while staunching the development of the local citizenry.

36 Historically, the autonomy debate has been divided between the Canadian model and the Cuban model of autonomy. The first was based on the methods adopted by the British Empire in which the metropolis would maintain certain rights and control over the nation, but effectively the nation would manage most of their internal affairs and enjoy certain privileges. However, the metropolis would remain nominally in control, while the nation would have no representation within the government of the metropolis. The Cuban model was based on similar concepts of self-rule, especially in determining economic and trade policies, but the nation would remain an integral part of the metropolis. They would still send representative to the central government in the metropolis and be subject to most of their laws. (Scarano) (Formacion…del partido liberal reformista, 141-142) This model of autonomy most resembled an autonomous community such as the modern Basque government. 37 Pilar Barbosa de Rosario, El ensayo de la autonomía en Puerto Rico, 1897-1898 (San Juan de P.R.: Obra de José C̀ elso Barbosa, 1986), 27–29. 38 Gonzalo F. Córdova, “Formación y Desarrollo Del Partido Liberal Reformista, 1864-1886,” Cupey 7, no. 1–2 (December 1990): 141–42. 39 Gonzalo F. Córdova, Then as Now: The Statehood Ideology of Barbosa and Martinez Nadal (San Juan, P.R.: Barbosa Press, 2008), 9. 16

Muñoz Rivera held similar beliefs on the need for distance from the metropolitan center, but he was less skeptical of the Spanish government and elite in general. This struggle is

captured in the battle over the Sagastine Pact that split the liberals in 1897.40 Barbosa and his

faction truly believed that autonomy gained via pragmatic compromise would not achieve lasting

results because they believed that “Spain cannot provide what it does not have itself,” referring

to freedom.41 Barbosa makes a similar statement, saying he would only begin to trust the Spanish

Liberal Party and their leader Sagasta if he were able to deliver freedom and prosperity to the

Spanish people.42 Muñoz Rivera was unconcerned about this, and saw any progress towards

autonomy as worth pursuing. This choice was met with conflict among elements of the liberal

elite who perceived it as a betrayal of the Ponce Constitution and accused Muñoz Rivera of

pursuing his own political aggrandizement by working with the Spaniards.43

Some have argued that this split is the result of personal politics, pitting Barbosa vs

Muñoz Rivera.44 However, in reality it was a conflict between idealism and pragmatism which

served to veil their own vision for the island. Referring to the Sagastine Pact, Barbosa said:

Entre la política de cabeza, lo práctico, de que tanto se ha echado manos ahora para justificar actitudes y la política de corazón, el idealismo, preferimos este; aquello conducirá a los resultados inmediatos, pero efímero, este conduce al pueblo, por el convencimiento, a la estimación del derecho, y le educa para la libertad, seguro de que un día ha de llegar en el que poder vendrá en la autonomía , sin que este tenga que retroceder para encontrarlo, ni ocultar su nombre para realizar su obra de paz, de amor, y de progreso45

40 The Sagastine Pact is the agreement between a faction of Puerto Rican liberals to cooperate with the national Liberal party, a monarchist party, in return for a promise of autonomy once the Liberal leader Sagasta took power. This pact caused the split in the party, as Barbosa and his allies refused to cooperate with Sagasta and give up the parties regional identity and risk becoming subject to the will of Spain. They also distrusted Sagasta himself. 41 Barbosa de Rosario, El ensayo de la autonomía en Puerto Rico, 1897-1898, 50; Samuel Silva Gotay, Catolicismo y política en Puerto Rico: bajo España y Estados Unidos, siglos XIX y XX (La Editorial, UPR, 2005), 44. 42 Barbosa de Rosario, El ensayo de la autonomía en Puerto Rico, 1897-1898, 27–29. 43 Córdova, Luis Sánchez Morales, 48–49. 44 María Dolores Luque de Sánchez, La ocupacion Norteamericana y la Ley Foraker: (La opinión pública Purertorriquena) 1898-1904, 1st ed. (Río Piedras, PR: Editorial Universitaria, Universidad de Puerto Rico, 1980), 80. 45 Barbosa de Rosario, El ensayo de la autonomía en Puerto Rico, 1897-1898, 50. 17

Here Barbosa separates himself indelibly from Muñoz Rivera on ideological grounds. Barbosa’s

vision demands a certain path of political development. In it the people undergo an active

process of education on popular government and freedom via pursuit of idealism, as opposed to a

pragmatic elite led freedom. Barbosa did not believe that Spain’s current path provided for that

growth. Muñoz Rivera and his allies believed that the liberal monarchical system would of

permit long term growth for Puerto Rico, therefore making them the liberal elite who would, in

the long-term, stagnate Puerto Rico.

I posit that this dichotomy is the root cause of the conflict between Muñoz Rivera

Barbosa, and the eventual elevation of Muñoz Rivera over Barbosa in the historiography.

Barbosa saw ideology as a crucial force in motivating the people in a democratic society and

Muñoz Rivera was more focused on tangible gains. Barbosa believed the foundations of a liberal

society was the citizenry and Muñoz Rivera was more focused on the role of the elite in these

processes. Both might have pursued similar ends, a liberal society, but their routes were nearly

incompatible.46 The PPD approach more resembled Muñoz Rivera’s, since Barbosa’s adherence

to ideology would have been mocked by Muñoz Marín as a fanatic obsession with the unreal.47

One historian, Mariano Negron-Portillo, characterized Barbosa’s vision as “Democratic

Reformism” which he defined as a branch of liberalism that is more socially progressive than its

traditional creole counterpart.48 This specific vision was influenced by Barbosa’s experiences with the federalism of Spanish Republicanism, and his work with labor organization and

progressive thought in Michigan.49 Its defining characteristic was the emphasis on empowering

46 Barbosa de Rosario, La politica en dos tiempos, 79. 47 Barbosa de Rosario, 57. 48 Mariano Negrón-Portillo, Las turbas republicanas, 1900-1904 (Río Piedras, P.R.: Ediciones Huracán, 1990), 111–14. 49 Negrón-Portillo, 30–31. 18

the working class in a perpetual effort towards progress. For Barbosa, this progress was moral,

political and economic, and each was intertwined with the other. One could not achieve a moral

society or political liberation if poverty plagued the majority of the nation, and vice versa. To

combat the legacies of Spanish colonialism and Puerto Rico’s squalid present, they had to

combat all three evils of political ignorance, material destitution and a spiritual degradation.50

Therefore, any project for national upliftment or development needs to work towards labor

emancipation, since the labor class compose the largest section of the nation.

I use “upliftment” because Barbosa did believe that elite figures like himself had to play a role in the process. The most important role of the elite is to communicate the path to modernity, in Barbosa’s case, via his party Republican Party and his articles.51 They were blessed with the

resources and knowledge necessary in a citizen, but they were not numerous enough to represent

the majority of the country nor drag the people into modernity. Nor could they educate or lead

the people unless the people were able and willing to follow. Therefore, this project could not be

an elite-led project. It was meant to give the working class the opportunity and tools to better

themselves, not to serve as a paternalistic mode of nation building. Instead of focusing on

patriotic affirmation, Barbosa’s focus was popular participation.52 This is one of the crucial

aspects of Barbosas vision that strongly distinguishes him from many other creole liberals,

including the PPD Autonomists.

The danger of an elite led nation comes from the lack of a substantial legal or popular opposition to prevent abuses. In Puerto Rico, there is both a tradition of weak laws and an active

50 José Celso Barbosa, José Celso Barbosa, pionero en el cooperativismo puertorriqueño, siglo XIX, ed. Pilar Barbosa, Documentos para la historia ;; vol. I-2 (San Juan de Puerto Rico: Obra de Jose Celso Barbosa y Alcala, Inc., 1982), 16. 51 Barbosa de Rosario, De Baldorioty a Barbosa, 91. 52 Negrón-Portillo, Las turbas republicanas, 1900-1904, 26. 19

suppression of popular politics in opposition of abuses. Barbosa describes this as the dominance

of executive power over the law, or Ley vs Rey. So in Puerto Rico “…la palabra gobierno suele

expresar muy poco más que la sujeción de una multitud a la voluntad y poder de uno o de unos

pocos.”53 However, in a functioning Republic the only sovereign is the people, whose mandate is

captured in the constitution and the functions of government are conducted by public servants

who obey the law as outlined by the constitution.54

Barbosa’s ultimate goal is a republic of independent minded citizens that would fight to

uphold the principles of democratic tradition and their rights as both workers and free citizens,

who’s “reactions would not be captive” to external forces, and instead derive their opinions and

motivations from within.

Pueblo instruido, pueblo satisfecho, pueblo que confía en sus mismas fuerzas y para nada cuenta con las del estado, ha de ser un pueblo feliz, viril, incorruptible donde las doctrinas democráticas han de encontrar defensores, y donde la reacción no podrá ser presa, porque quien hace de sus deberes un culto, quien estima y ejercita sus derechos; quien aprende a ser fuerte sin tutela, quien en sus mismas fuerzas individuales encuentra energía bastantes para la lucha por la existencia; ha de ser un pueblo selecto; un pueblo digno, un pueblo de ciudadanos, no una gleba55 Once freed, the people will be able to take control over their own destiny with minimal

intervention from the elite. This path of self-reliance and popular empowerment creates a strong

people, more so than the elitist alternative. Otherwise, given the political culture of these creole

elites, Puerto Rico risks becoming a “tropical republic,” or an oligarchy.56

It was this narrative that disincentivized integrating Barbosa into PPD autonomism. PPD

autonomism has strong roots in populism and popular participation, but there is a consensus

53 José Celso Barbosa, Orientando al pueblo, 1900-1921, ed. Pilar Barbosa de Rosario, vol. 4, Obra de José Celso Barbosa (San Juan, PR: Imprenta Venezuela, 1939), 38–40. 54 Barbosa, 4:40. 55 Barbosa, José Celso Barbosa, pionero en el cooperativismo puertorriqueño, siglo XIX, 29. 56 Córdova, Then as Now, 11. 20

among the elite that progress would be elite led. The people’s duties included emigrating to

either the cities or the United States, and conforming to the increasing penetration of the

capitalist system into everyday life.57 The “people” were an active body with a will of their own, little thought was given to individuals. Therefore, Barbosa’s model of labor led development proved both a challenge to the increasing power of the Puerto Rican elite in the new colonial order, and the model of capitalist development on which the PPD based their legitimacy.58

I would argue Barbosa’s vision manifests a deeper understanding of the Puerto Rican

people and a nearly inexhaustible optimism characteristic of the liberalism of his time. In his

writing he demonstrates both a deep understanding and concern over the lives of Puerto Ricans

at the various levels of society. At the end of his life he inhabited the heights of the political and

cultural elite, but he was born the son of a mason and an immigrant. He embraced his role as an

elite and a leader, but he continued to place the working class as the “base of all progress” and,

most importantly, he treated the working class as independent actors worthy of respect and with

the capability of self-governance in both theory and practice. It was the job of Barbosa and his

allies to become the allies of the working class in their long march towards progress.

Barbosa and the Working Class: Cooperatives, Democracy and Labor Emancipation.

As mentioned above, Barbosa explicitly grounded his vision for Puerto Rican progress in

the urban working class. They were the backbone of economic growth and the moral center of

Barbosas world. The elite, specifically the bourgeois elite, played a crucial role in society and in

bolstering the working class but, fundamentally, the working class moved the country forward.

All they required in the long term were the institutions to protect individual freedom and allow

57 Díaz Quiñones, La Memoria Rota, 50. 58 Díaz Quiñones, 21. 21

the individual to better themselves.59 This is where Barbosa’s optimism and ideology manifest

themselves into the real world. We see this in how he viewed popular participation and the role

of labor organization in fomenting progress. The cooperative would tackle the two great

challenges facing the Puerto Rican people in the form of limited political activism and real

material want.

First, Barbosa believed the Puerto Ricans suffered from a lack of political rights as opposed to their US counterparts. In many ways, Spain was the model of a nation that prohibited its citizens from fulfilling their full potential. Its political system was built on a conservative

monarchy that had actively fought to prevent the rise of liberal governance and working class

empowerment. Therefore, Puerto Ricans were not able achieve the necessary political power as to motivate popular participation as citizens. They were denied the opportunity to create a

republic of active citizens that can fight for their own rights and perpetuate the gains of

liberalism, independent of government or elite intervention.60

Second, Puerto Ricans suffered under intense poverty which prevented the moral or

social progress of a great portion of the people. Workers needed to escape poverty and their

position of destitution to adopt their role as citizens. When one was limited by circumstance and

prevented from escaping it via cultural, economic or political forces, the worker naturally

succumbed to feelings of indifference, or even worse, hopelessness. Under these circumstances it is only natural that one would fall to vice in search of consolation for one’s troubles since one cannot exert their rights or conduct their duties as a citizen in a democracy. They cannot be truly independent or free, and are therefore objects to be controlled by the powerful. 61

59 Barbosa, José Celso Barbosa, pionero en el cooperativismo puertorriqueño, siglo XIX, 28. 60 Barbosa, 29. 61 Barbosa, 16, 88. 22

Both of these points are presented in a historical narrative constructed by Barbosa under

the pseudonym Vascur. There he outlines how laborers slowly progresses from a state of slavery

and passivity in the classical period via gradual acquisition of productive capabilities. Slavery

characterized the classical period, in which the laborer was “subjugated under the empire of force,” content to receive their meager subsistence from those who would exploit their labor.

However, man’s natural pursuit of progress, even when subjugated in body and spirit, instigated

conflict. From it the laborer acquired some rights and a glimpse of the “road that separated them

from liberty.” This began the next phase of human progress in the middle ages, “…época

gloriosa, porque fue la época del martirio para las instituciones, puente por el que el género

humano de la civilización antigua a la moderna, y en que en medio de una lucha titánica por su

constancia se han librado las grandes batallas del trabajo y la emancipación del hombre.”62

This period marks the rise of landholders and the aristocratic elite that subjugated the

working class under serfdom and tributes. The middle ages were also the transitionary period

where modern culture began to take form and the people slowly accumulated capital and greater

freedoms through the people’s perseverance. However, following this liberation from the feudal

yoke, the worker soon found themselves worse off since they were unaccustomed to their new

way of life. They retained the cultural remnants of slavery and lacked the direction or resources

to continue on alone. They therefore looked towards their most fortunate peers, the urban elite

and skilled craftsmen, for guidance. However, these individuals abused this trust and, under the

guise of offering collective protection, created guilds out of “personal greed and political

ambition.” These new elite then used this monopolizing power and the collective productivity of

62 Barbosa, 20–21. 23

the working class to avoid the vassalizing power of the aristocracy. The laborer then found

themselves bound by a new servitude where they were deprived of their laboral freedom.63

It was not until the French revolution that these systems were broken, allowing the

laborer to take advantage of their freedom once again.64 However, the "clases egoístas y

privilegiadas" still threaten modern workers because they are concerned that cooperatives

threaten their “ease and usury.”65 Barbosa presents these elite figures as obstacles and opponents to the worker’s elevation. They both repress the political power of the working class by monopolizing all power, and prevent the economic betterment of the working class by exploiting their labor and monopolizing the necessary capital to increase productivity.66 This was an

intolerable yet nearly inescapable state for the Puerto Rican and Hispanic working classes, as

demonstrated by his historical analysis.

This framework demonstrates that the working class would require some assistance in the struggle for progress. It shows the complicated interplay between the liberal elite and the working class, in which the Liberal elite can often prevent the rise of a truly liberal republic. It represented a reality in many fellow Latin countries that Barbosa feared would repeat itself in

Puerto Rico. In the autonomist newspaper El País Barbosa warned:

El país sabe que NO PUEDE ESPERAR, NI CONFIAR en los Puertorriqueños que en la mascarada política de la autonomía se presentaron al pueblo con el disfraz de patriotas, con la careta de su amor a la democracia, como libertadores de ese pueblo, e hicieron burla sangrienta de los derechos del pueblo, resultando así derrocada la tiranía incondicional, triunfante la TIRANIA LIBERAL y los demócratas y los hijos del pueblo convertidos en déspotas y tiranos67

63 Barbosa, 22. 64 Barbosa, 20–26. 65 Barbosa, 41. 66 Barbosa, 51. 67 Barbosa, 68–69. 24

Here he equates the new dominance of the Muñoz Rivera faction and the liberal fusionist

faction as a continuation of the tyranny under the old conservative peninsular government in

Puerto Rico. This comparison emerges from the mutual dependence on the metropolis and their

elite origins. The conservative, peninsular party titled “incondicionales,”-as in literally unconditionally pro-Spanish-simply acted as the representatives of peninsular interests on the island. Barbosa was concerned that the new fusion of the Puerto Rican autonomist party with the metropolitan liberal party would be characterized by similar dependence on the anti-autonomist metropolis. This fear was only exacerbated by the seemingly elite nature of the new creole liberal leadership. Barbosa was concerned their ties to democracy and the people were too tenuous and

would not survive the influences of the metropolis.

Given the failure of the elite to provide this aid, it then becomes necessary for new

institutions to bolster the process of worker emancipation. This is the role of the Cooperative.

These offered an opportunity to “break the chains” by allowing the labor to elevate themselves

without the need to rely on elite forces.68 Cooperatives break both bastions of elite control, those

being political and economic marginalization, to empower the laborer.

Cooperatives foster a greater sense of popular empowerment in the people. This comes about naturally given the increasing importance and prominence of the people in the economy,

but the specific organization of the cooperative accustoms the worker to self-determination and

political activism.69 It is this reason that Barbosa was so focused on developing and

communicating the democratic nature of the Ahorro Collectivo, his own cooperative.70 The

Ahorro Collectivo had two representatives from every union and industry that would elect the

68 Córdova, Then as Now, 13. 69 Barbosa, José Celso Barbosa, pionero en el cooperativismo puertorriqueño, siglo XIX, 41–43. 70 Barbosa, 50. 25

leadership of the cooperative and serve as its junta. Afterwards, individual projects, such as the

efforts to create work and life insurance for members as well as break food monopolies, would

be handled by commission appointed by the junta as needed.71 This system they hoped would

satisfy the disparate elements of labor leadership. Additionally, it served the dual purpose of both

increasing the legitimacy of the cooperative and its popular support, setting the ground work to

make it a relevant political actor.

Barbosa also reported on the internal discussions in the cooperative, such as the decisions

reached by the junta and cooperatives leadership, in an appeal to transparency.72 Of course, the

reports were generally positive pieces, but they clearly demonstrates a desire to really reach out

to people and involve them in process. This was the crucial political function of the cooperative.

In Barbosa grander vision it was not even important if the specific cooperative survived or that

this be the specific method popular empowerment. All that really mattered was that the people

began to make their voices heard.

Barbosa expresses his focus on activism in the pieces: No están en lo Justo, (24/09/1896)

Los indefinidos, (3/10/1896) and No me Meto en Política (12/12/1896).73 In them he clearly

outlines political activism as the means by which good men can achieve the greatest impact in

their country.74 However, unlike the populism of the PPD and other creole elites who call to national cohesion and unity, Barbosa actively embraces disagreement. He wants what is best for the nation, but he believes that the democratic process requires disagreement. There can and should be multiple parties. People should define their beliefs and work towards them, not simply remain passive or moderate. He even encourages individuals to form their own parties if the

71 Barbosa, 38–40. 72 Barbosa, 42–43. 73 Barbosa de Rosario, De Baldorioty a Barbosa, 99. 74 Barbosa, Orientando al pueblo, 1900-1921, 4:20. 26

political environment doesn’t welcome your opinions.75 Therefore, once again Barbosa places

the agency in the hands of the people, since it is an active choice for a citizen to choose who to

follow or when to lead.

In his model, legitimacy comes from the continual effort on part of the citizenry to fulfill

their purpose in the nation in new, largely autonomous, but often codependent ways. However, it

is unclear whether simply becoming politically active was enough. There are other elements and

nuances, as well as expectations Barbosa and his contemporaries had for the citizenry. For

example, patria and one’s service to it remains an important theme in his discourse. "[Solo]

cumple con su deber el ciudadano que dedica su vida al servicio de la humanidad y al servicio

de la patria."76 Barbosa frames the autonomous victory achieved in 1898 as a service to both

Puerto Rico and Spain. All other goals, such as family, wealth, prestige and one’s profession are

laudable goals, but will not fulfill one’s duty.77 Therefore, one must ask what Barbosa

considered a service to humanity and patria. The answer is complicated, and not something that

can be easily tackled in this paper. However, if nothing else, political activism is the first, necessary step, and cooperatives are a way to begin this process.

Before the people can become citizens, they must first escape the bounds of poverty.

Barbosa was acutely aware of the crushing effects of poverty and material uncertainty. His own family had been jostled by economic changes and he actively campaigned to introduce safeguards for workers.78 Under these conditions of uncertainty and pessimism the individual is

likely to surrender to life.79 So, one is simply not able to take on the responsibilities necessary to

75 Barbosa, 4:22. 76 Marrero, El pensamiento de José Celso Barbosa, 45; Barbosa de Rosario, De Baldorioty a Barbosa, 98. 77 Barbosa de Rosario, El ensayo de la autonomía en Puerto Rico, 1897-1898, 106, 99. 78 Barbosa, José Celso Barbosa, pionero en el cooperativismo puertorriqueño, siglo XIX, 33. 79 Barbosa, 16. 27

the citizen since they are not equipped with the weapons with which they may fight for their

interest and vision, nor the motivation to do so.80

The cooperative aims to remedy this by introducing a crucially important level of

stability and insurance into the lives of the working class. By increasing their membership and

collecting money when the laborer is able to contribute, each individual laborer is granted greater

protections in difficult times. Therefore, the more they are able to rely on themselves, having

been freed from the burden of uncertainty, the more they are able to improve their situation,

morality and happiness.81 Once the people have achieved this stability, they may then benefit

from the freedom offered to them and from the capitalist system.

Barbosa hoped that cooperatives would be able to provide a wide array of services and

support structures to better the lives of the working classes. These included banking services,

buying in bulk to lower average costs, insurance, education and vocational training, acquisition

of common capital, and networking opportunities, among others.82 These services were

becoming more necessary as the economy developed, since the further development of

capitalism was empowering the elite and further impoverishing the people as they were left

behind. In Europe, the laborers of the most developed countries had already managed to organize

and benefit from the advent of mass industrialization. Therefore, as Puerto Rico entered this phase of development it also became necessary for the laborer to willingly cooperate on an individual basis so as to take advantage of the new opportunities that had originally been out of reach.83

80 Barbosa, 28. 81 Barbosa, 29. 82 Barbosa, 26. 83 Barbosa, 24–25. 28

Barbosa makes a conscious effort to emphasize the fact that this was not motivated by

class conflict.84 He claims that the idea of cooperatives arose from the experiences of the working class and are motivated by nothing more than the pursuit of individual freedom, apart from all “socialist origins.”85 These cooperatives simply sought to compete with the moneyed

elite, and in doing so convert the working class into a capital owning class. In essence, making

them all capitalists in their own right.86 This, in, turn would lead to their emancipation and begin

the process of elevating the working class for the betterment of all classes and the nation as a

whole since Barbosa considers the working class "…base of all progress, both moral and

material, for all the peoples of the world."87

By the end of this process, once the laborer has managed to escape the grasp of poverty

and begun to take on their responsibilities as citizens of a modern nation, there will be sufficient

institutions in place to allow a fully functioning democracy. Where new institutions are needed,

the citizen will fight for their interests and change the government as needed. The citizen will

become the foundation of this new order and determine the direction of the government. The

elite, while still present and reaping the benefits of progress, will no longer be able to impose

their will on the people. The people would have evolved enough as to determine their own

opinions and inform themselves.

However, this is not the end of history. When the necessary steps towards creating the

foundations of a representative government and society are created, it then becomes necessary to

discuss the significantly more subjective questions surrounding the character of Puerto Rico.

Specifically, asking who, and what, can be considered Puerto Rican. The people, armed with

84 Barbosa, 54–55. 85 Barbosa, 25–26. 86 Barbosa, 17. 87 Barbosa, 15. 29

material well-being, moral enlightenment, and an appreciation for democratic principles, must

now collectively define who they are as a people, independent but connected to metropolitan

center.

Politics of National Identity

One of the most difficult things to reconcile about Barbosa’s vision with modern

conceptions of Puertorican-ness, or even just nationhood, is his approach to patriotism and

identity. It doesn’t seem like he held traditional views on nationhood and self-determinism, nor

did he embrace nationalism. Instead, he seems to maintain faith in the homogenizing power of

liberalism, Western society and rational law.88 In the case of Puerto Rico, he believed the

island’s people and society had to go through a transformation to allow the development of a

liberal democracy. It was here that Barbosa seems to have embraced his role as an elite. He used

his platform in both politics and print culture to defend certain moral and societal doctrines he

believed would help Puerto Rico in their development while maintaining the admirable facets of

Puerto Rican culture.

He does not adopt any obvious or consistent framework when discussing the Puerto

Rican identity or its cultural development. Instead he believed culture was malleable and should

change to better the lives of the people and foster a healthy citizenry.89 Four prevalent angles at

which he approached his ideal Puerto Rican are his construction of patriotism, Americanization,

the urban nature of citizenry, and the subtly racialized character of the laborer and citizen.

88 Jimenez-Roman, “Un Hombre (Negro) Del Pueblo: José Celso Barbosa and the Puerto Rican ‘Race’ towards Whiteness,” 55; Edwin A. Fragoso Rivera, El Partido Autonomista Histórico, Puro u Ortodoxo su transición al Partido Republicano Puertorriqueño: 1897-1904, 1st ed. (Lajas, PR: Editorial Akelarre, 2014), 170; JoséCelso Barbosa, Problema de razas, ed. Pilar Barbosa de Rosario, vol. 3, La obra de José Celso Barbosa (San Juan de Puerto Rico: Imprenta Venezuela, 1937), 69–71. 89 Barbosa, Orientando al pueblo, 1900-1921, 4:12. 30

First, for Barbosa, patriotism was a flexible concept. This largely stems from his

adherence to autonomism and his faith in the secular rule of law. However, most importantly he

seemed to organize his loyalty to “national” bodies around patria as opposed to modern nations.

As a result, Puerto Ricans could exist within a federal government and be both Puerto Rican and

Spanish or American. This demonstrates a duality, if not a plurality, of constructed identities. As a result, he welcomed a measure of Americanization where it could better the lives of the people.

However, within a federal government, Puerto Rico would remain a distinct cultural entity just as different states boast differing identities and values. It was in this framework that the citizen was able to negotiate their collective and individual identity.

Secondly, on the individual level Barbosa had a vision when he was imagining the working class and, therefore, the citizenry. In his eyes, they were indelibly urban residents and

frequently of mixed race. This stands in contrast to the predominant view of what constitutes true

Puerto Rico. Specifically the figure of the Jíbaro as defined by the PPD during the nation

building project of the 50s and 60s, despite the fact that Barbosas vision was more accurate to the

realities of a large segment of the Puerto Rican population. Therefore, in constructing this view

of Puertorican-ness Barbosa was not looking to a distant future or past, but to the reality he saw

outside his office and inside his clinical practice.

As an autonomist and statehood advocate Barbosa had to wrestle with the challenge of

dual loyalties. He reconciled this seeming conflict by focusing on the concept of patria, or patriotism. Barbosa believed there were two kinds of patriotism, regional patriotism and intelligent patriotism, both of which he described in his article Los Indefinido. Regional patriotism, or innate patriotism, is defined as the loyalty and love one holds for one’s home, or where an individual has their roots. For Barbosa, this is simply Puerto Rico. It is this love that

31

motivates his pursuit of reform and justice for his people. However, intelligent patriotism comes

from the appreciation one develops for a people’s culture and way of life from having lived with

them. This can instead be developed in one’s adult life and allows one to faithfully serve Spain

and then the United States after 1898, while maintaining their loyalty to Puerto Rico.90

This duality of loyalty, to both PR, the patria chica, and the metropolis, the patria grande, was justified in Barbosas’ writing as a result of the federal system he pursued. This intelligent patriotism was dependent on the maintenance of just governance such as the kind seen in federalism, since “liberty and rights are patria as well.”91 Under Spain this meant pursuing

decentralization efforts, such as the autonomy bill of 1898, to oppose the centralizing monarchist

forces and create a strong liberal government in Spain for the betterment of both Spain and

Puerto Rico.92 Under the US, given the existence of a well-run democracy, Puerto Rico simply had to pursue statehood to become a well-integrated state. This is because Barbosa believed federalism as a way of uniting different peoples under one greater identity.93 Therefore, he could pursue policies that foster the betterment of the Puerto Rican people and defend a distinct Puerto

Rican identity or patria while being truly in favor of autonomism, or federalism within a large state.

Despite Barbosa’s belief in the existence of a distinct Puerto Rican identity, or at least maintaining a separate loyalty for his home, Barbosa does not believe that the Puerto Rican

identity is an intrinsic or timeless one. To some this comes as anathema, since they believe this

view prevents one from perceiving Puerto Rico as a separate culture, or one worth preserving.

90 Barbosa, 4:36. 91 Barbosa, 4:37. 92 Barbosa de Rosario, El ensayo de la autonomía en Puerto Rico, 1897-1898, 106. 93 Fragoso Rivera, El Partido Autonomista Histórico, Puro u Ortodoxo su transición al Partido Republicano Puertorriqueño, 170; Ramos Mendez, Posesion del ayer, 50–51. 32

This vision has largely motivated the strong rejection of statehood as an alternative among the academia, as they have sought to exalt an intrinsic Puerto Rican identity and culture.94 However,

Barbosa believes the Puerto Rican identity is not defined by obvious cultural signs, nor is it immutable. Instead, he believes that Puerto Rico must do what it can to adopt the good elements of American culture and preserve the good of Puerto Rican culture.95 This includes the Spanish language, alongside the literary culture and regional connections throughout the Hispanic world.96

For Barbosa, Americanization was a surprisingly pragmatic solution to the problems plaguing Puerto Rico. Specifically, he viewed it as a vehicle of popular empowerment and mobility. As opposed to later views on Americanization, Barbosa made a distinction between

Political and Cultural Americanization. One represented the path towards greater prosperity, and the other a vulgar imitation with no real end. Cultural Americanization, as the name implies, can be broadly described as an effort to bring about elements of US culture to Puerto Rico. Naturally, this is not inherently negative, but the process often carries a deep colonial tone, either via the government or elites hoping to “civilize” the island or seamlessly integrate it into the US nation via erasure. This view carries the inherent assumption that some elements of Puerto Rican culture are defective, or at least inferior to their US counterpart. Both of these interpretations are unacceptable to most Puerto Rican intellectuals, including Barbosa and fellow statehood advocates.

Barbosa rejected the idea that Puerto Rico needed concerted measures of cultural assimilation. He refers to efforts of certain elite figures to shave off mustaches and wear the

94 Ramos Mendez, Posesión del ayer, 23. 95 Barbosa, Orientando al pueblo, 1900-1921, 4:12. 96 Barbosa, 4:33. 33

clothes of the United States as a “Pseudo americanización justamente ridiculizada.”97 There was

no benefit, and like the efforts of the creole liberal elite, it fails to treat the fundamental problems

facing the Puerto Rican people. It does not empower them to take control of their lives, nor can it affect their lives in any meaningful way when they are forced by economic pressure and necessity to live in poverty. Americanization is for the people, and Americanization policies should act on this principle.98

It is because of this utilitarian view of Americanization that Barbosa supported a

bilingual curriculum to teach English. He saw English as one of the best means of arming the

Puerto Rican people to profit from the opportunities integration into the United States would bring. Emigration to the United States, US capital, and integrating the US and Puerto Rican markets would give the Puerto Rican laborer advantages, in that they receive both greater opportunities and protection under the law. Only the Puerto Rican capitalist would be worse off, since they lose access to their captive markets and cheap labor. It is because of this that Barbosa critiques politicians that combat Americanization efforts, especially the implementation of

English education. He views it as inherently hypocritical, perceiving it as an easy sacrifice for the elite to make since they will maintain access to Europe and other Hispanic markets.99 The laborer however can only gain from learning English.

As opposed to Cultural Americanization, Political Americanization is a necessity and

Barbosa’s focus. With it, Puerto Rico can finally escape the heritage of Spanish political culture and governance that has plagued the Hispanic world. That being the tendency to associate governance with submission of will to one or a few individuals instead of the Anglo model that

97 Barbosa, 4:33. 98 Barbosa, 4:34; Ramos Mendez, Posesion del ayer, 44. 99 Córdova, Then as Now, 13. 34

places laws and popular will above all. This means of Political Americanization, an

Americanization of “ideas,” should be actively pursued by the Puerto Rican people for the

betterment of the island and not simply the elite.100 Additionally, this is a necessary step because

Puerto Rico now finds themselves indelibly linked to the US, and coexistence and eventual

integration requires this step. In accepting Americanization and US political culture, the ultimate

course of the island’s future is in their own hands. However, should the island reject the

integration, then equality will become impossible and Puerto Rico might find itself in a perpetual

colonial relationship.101

With the development of this political Americanization, and then integration into the

Union, Puerto Rico will better be able to develop their own regional identity and culture. The

decentralization of a federal government and rights protected by a constitution make it so that

statehood offers Puerto Rico the greatest opportunity to exercise their independence.102 There

would be no imposed structure that seeks to mold the Puerto Rican people, either from the

federal or regional government and the elite. Instead, the people will be able to chart their future

on their own. Puerto Ricans will be able to adopt the institutions and habits that increase their wellbeing and reject those that harm them or are anathema to their sensibilities.103 This includes

the stigmas of race, bigotry and institutions that are tailored for different race relations.

The introduction of these institutions that foment equal citizenship and justice would

serve to bolster Barbosa’s vision of the Puerto Rican working class by creating and protecting

the necessary institutions for their empowerment. However, despite the fact Barbosa believed the

new Puerto Rican culture had yet to emerge, he did consistently envision this new working class

100 Barbosa, Orientando al pueblo, 1900-1921, 4:34. 101 Barbosa, 4:34. 102 Ramos Mendez, Posesion del ayer, 50–51. 103 Barbosa, Orientando al pueblo, 1900-1921, 4:34–35. 35

citizenry as predominantly urban and of mixed race. He believed they would be urban because

civilization and progress was synonymous with greater productivity and labor concentration, and

that urban centers were bastions of the more advanced elements of Puerto Rican culture.104 He

also envisioned the laborer being of mixed race because that was the reality he experienced in his

life, with the coasts and cities being significantly more afro-Puerto Rican as opposed to the more

Hispanic and Mestizo interior.105

This vision stands in contrast to the narrative captured in the figure of the Jíbaro that has

largely erased both the urban and labor organization of the early 20th century, and the distinctly

mixed racial background of Puerto Rico, especially along the coasts.106 Barbosa captured a

reality of urban activism in his time, but at the cost of the rurality. He believed that human

progress was centered on cities. In his historical narrative, the peasant escapes rural serfdom and

seeks opportunities in the cities, in cooperatives and manufacturing.107 This reflects his belief

that cities are where the new stage of societal development will occur. In doing so it paints much

of the countryside as a holdover of the past. Given the fact that Puerto Rico was a predominantly

rural society, with much of the population living either in the coastal areas producing sugar or in

the mountains relying largely on subsistence agriculture, this inherently excluded many people

from participating in the nation as they were. In fact, on one occasion Barbosa called the rural

electorate as “unconscious mass” and “servilely submitting themselves to the will of one man” when they continued voting for Barbosa’s political opponents.108

104 Barbosa, 4:12–13. 105 United States. War Dept. Puerto Rico Census Office et al., Report on the Census of Porto Rico, 1899 (Washington : Govt. print. off., 1900), http://archive.org/details/reportoncensusof00unitiala. 106 Jimenez-Roman, “Un Hombre (Negro) Del Pueblo: José Celso Barbosa and the Puerto Rican ‘Race’ towards Whiteness,” 18; Carmen L. Torres-Robles, “La Mitificación y Desmitificación Del Jíbaro Como Símbolo de La Identidad Nacional Puertorriqueña,” Bilingual Review / La Revista Bilingüe 24, no. 3 (1999): 241–53. 107 Barbosa, José Celso Barbosa, pionero en el cooperativismo puertorriqueño, siglo XIX, 21–22. 108 Barbosa, 88. 36

There was a strong and active urban labor movement that seems to fit the model of active

citizenry Barbosa hoped to develop, especially in the early American period.109 Local Puerto

Rican labor organization actively cooperated with US organized labor, especially the American

Federation of Labor. Labor leaders, like Santiago Iglesias, represent a vibrant force in Puerto

Rican politics. In 1899, they created the Partido Obrero, which would work with the Federación

Libre de Trabajadores, the Puerto Rican branch of the American Federation of Labor, and later the US socialist party. They also enjoyed striking political success, maintaining informal cooperation with Barbosa’s Republican Party due to their similar pro-statehood ideals. They later formed a coalition with the Republican Party of Puerto Rico after Barbosa’s death and the

Republican Party’s fragmentation. In 1917, the party received 24,468 votes (14 percent) and

59,140 votes in 1920 (23.5 percent).110 Even before rapid industrialization under the PPD and

Operation bootstrap, labor elements were a strong, politically active section of the island’s population. They rejected the identification with the Hispanic and rural past, looking forward to statehood, democracy and some interpretation of urban self-reliance. One of the most striking moments of this ardent rejection of pro-Spanish sentiment were violent political manifestations called the Turbas Republicanas.

The Turbas Republicanas racked Puerto Rico from 1900 to 1904. These were bands of urban poor who attacked political rivals of the Republican Party under the leadership of a local laborer called, Mauleon. They targeted newspapers, burned offices, and used intimidation in polls to harass Federal voters and candidates.111 This was the second notable outbreak of popular

109 Kirwin R. Shaffer, Black Flag Boricuas: Anarchism, Antiauthoritarianism, and the Left in Puerto Rico, 1897- 1921 (University of Illinois Press, 2013), 51, 69. 110 Scarano, Puerto Rico, 529–30. 111 Mariano Negrón-Portillo, El autonomismo puertorriqueño, su transformación ideológica, 1895-1914: la prensa en el análisis social, La Democracia de Puerto Rico, Colección Semilla (Río Piedras, PR: Ediciones Huracán, 1981), 53. 37

violence since the US annexation. The first occurred 1898-1899, when roaming bands of angry

peasants and poor, called Partidas Sediciosas attacked Spanish properties as an expression of

anti-Spanish sentiment.112 The Turbas Republicanas were different in a few ways. First, the

Turbas were mostly urban while the Partidas were distinctly rural. Second, the Partidas were a

relatively disorganized movement with no clear leadership. The Turbas on the other hand, while

largely an ad hoc popular movement, did have definitive leadership and cohesion, allowing for

their continued political presence.113 They both demonstrated an anti-Spanish sentiment at the time, and even a pro-US sentiment in their choice of targets.

Officially, these bands of urban poor were unaffiliated with the Puerto Rican Republican

Party, and none of the leadership, including Barbosa, openly supported or harbored them.

However, Mauleon was a vocal supporter of Barbosa and his politics.114 The Turbas were

generally pro-American and favored pro labor and pro-urban policies, and their leadership

believed that the Republicans could better represent and defend their interests.115 However, at

this time the policies of the Federal and Republican Party were relatively similar on core issues.

The Republicans were visibly more pro-American, but the Federal party had yet to abandon

statehood or openly criticize the colonial government. Instead, it seems that much of the Turbas’

support for the Republican Party stemmed from the composition of the parties membership and

leadership. The Federal party was the party of the creole land holder and rural peasantry,

representing coffee and sugar farmers in particular.116 The Republicans on the other hand

represented the urban professional class, such as doctors and lawyers, but also the urban, poor

112 Scarano, Puerto Rico, 454. 113 Negrón-Portillo, El autonomismo puertorriqueño, su transformación ideológica, 1895-1914, 56. 114 Negrón-Portillo, Las turbas republicanas, 1900-1904, 113. 115 Negrón-Portillo, El autonomismo puertorriqueño, su transformación ideológica, 1895-1914, 56, 61. 116 Negrón-Portillo, 61. 38

population and the large population of Afro-Puerto Ricans living in San Juan and the

neighboring regions.117 Therefore, some historians have attributed this sudden popular violence

to a general rejection of the creole system and the traditional elite. This common fear of Puerto

Rico becoming the Patria de los Criollos and their admiration of US democracy motivated

Puerto Rican labor and the Republican Party to cooperate.118

In addition to the rural urban dichotomy, there is the issue of the racial identity of the

idealized laborer. Barbosa, had a complicated relationship with the topic. He himself had

belonged to the working class and he was well aware of its largely African heritage, especially in

the coasts where the cities and plantations were located, as opposed to the more “Hispanic

interior.”119 Because of this, he continuously made sure to include the afro-Puerto Rican leaders

who began the process of cooperativization. During a meeting of the cooperative leadership in

1895, he recounted a history of the development of cooperative thought on the island so that we

remember with “gratitude and veneration” those who began and continued these crucial social

efforts. In it, he focused on the figure of Don Santiago Andrade, whom he described as

…un obrero modesto, oscuro, pobre, pero de inteligencia clara, de generoso anhelo, de voluntad perseverante y de influencia entre la clase obrera;” He was the guiding force behind the foundation of Puerto Rico’s first modern cooperative, Los

Amigos del Bien Público.120

Later in the same piece, Barbosa attributes the original call for the creation of the Ahorro

Collectivo to “Don Miguel Casado, oscuro hijo del pueblo” another “humble and honorable

117 Fragoso Rivera, El Partido Autonomista Histórico, Puro u Ortodoxo su transición al Partido Republicano Puertorriqueño, 127–49. 118 Negrón-Portillo, Las turbas republicanas, 1900-1904, 111–14. 119 The interior was not as Hispanic as is later portrayed, since there is a strong native influence. However, this has largely been erased by claiming that the natives were nearly exterminated by Spanish colonialism. Therefore, indigeneity remains only in the abstract, relegated to the past and subsumed even more so than the African past likely due to the differences in pigmentation. 120 Barbosa, José Celso Barbosa, pionero en el cooperativismo puertorriqueño, siglo XIX, 44–47. 39

artisan.”121 Barbosa even refuted publicly that he was the founder of the cooperative. He instead

attributed that honor to Don Miguel Casado.122 Barbosa was simply an elite figure who answered the call of the working class. In doing, Barbosa broke the traditional efforts to silence the working class and especially the Puerto Ricans of African heritage. This project of silencing was strongest with the increasing popularity of the ideal of a “Grand Puerto Rican family” at the time, and the elevation of the Jíbaro in the 30s as a traditional symbol of Puerto Rico. Barbosa instead includes them in a more subtle way, more similar to a quiet pride.123

Barbosa was proud of his heritage and frequently chose the more challenging path

because he believed it was the right one on the race issue. He suffered through the racism of the

Jesuits in the Seminario Jesuíta de Puerto Rico in pursuit of his education. There he was denied

the respect and consideration of other students, being held to a higher standard and lacking the

sense of fraternity or the mentorships that his peers enjoyed.124 Similarly, he refused to attend a

university in New York that merely “tolerated” students of African descent since "...esa tolerancia fue la que no quiso doblegarse ese bachiller que siempre tuvo por norma no aceptar humillación alguna." 125

Later in life he experienced racism at the hands of both the Spaniards and his fellow

Puerto Ricans. For example, the Spanish colonial government continually refused to recognize

Barbosa as an accredited doctor and open his practice, nominally because of his American

degree. Barbosa finally obtained his certifications only after involving the American ambassador.

121 Barbosa, 52. 122 Barbosa, 126–30. 123 The Grand Puerto Rican family refers to the idea that PR is a mixed race nation and therefore race does not matter. It is similar t ideas of color blindness in Cuba, and the idea has prevented the confrontation of the race issue in Puerto Rico because it can and has been seen as anti-patriotic. This vision encouraged the narrative that racism was brought to PR from the US. 124 Barbosa de Rosario, De Baldorioty a Barbosa, 71. 125 Barbosa de Rosario, 82. 40

However, he had to receive his accreditation in , and the judge who granted him the

certification refused to wear the customary robes for him. This, while disguised as a rejection of

American academia, was clearly an act of racial and class discrimination against Barbosa. As a

result of this, he was well aware of the relevance of his black identity and proud of it well into

his adult life. In 1900 he proclaimed, under a pseudonym, “no hay una sola mancha que puede empañarle [su honor]. El Dr. Barbosa solo tiene una mancha: el pigmento de la piel, y eso constituye su orgullo."126

Despite these proud affirmations and his efforts to include the race into the dialogue, his

message was less pointed on the issue when compared to his discussions on popular politics.

Instead, race became an ever present subtext in his ideology, but not part of the plain text. This

quiet pride can and has been seen as surrendering on the issue of race and conforming to the

increasing effort to silence the African heritage in Puerto Rico.

We see this when he discusses the concern that becoming a state would spread the racism

of Jim Crow to Puerto Rico. He argued that racism comes from the ignorance and fear of

“inferior whites” who are “white men in skin, but dark of mind,” oppressing and denigrating

their countrymen of African descent to make up for their own shortcomings. Real whites,

westerners, are elevated and meritocratic.127 This is reflected in the laws of the federal

government which is governed by the constitution and has demonstrated their commitment by

fighting the civil war. In the context of PR, this separated “Blancos” from “Quasi-Blancos,” and in the United States separated the North from the South. Therefore, racist laws could only be

implemented in Puerto Rico if the Puerto Ricans themselves decide to implement them. Instead

the Federal government would facilitate the elevation of the working class and black race via the

126 Barbosa, José Celso Barbosa, pionero en el cooperativismo puertorriqueño, siglo XIX, 124. 127 Barbosa, Problema de razas, 3:19–21. 41

enlightened institutions of the federal government.128 This results from Barbosa’s hatred of any

differentiation between races. He refused to accept mere tolerance, instead pursuing complete

equality and respect without erasure of heritage.129 Instead he believed, like many other afro-

Puerto Rican liberals, that constructed identities and joint citizenry would unite the people via

liberal ideals.130

In doing so, he made racism and individual problem as opposed to a political one, as he

confirmed by saying "El problema de color no existe en PR."131 Here he is not saying that there

are no racists in Puerto Rico. Instead, he is saying that racism is not a grander societal problem.

It is the result of an ignorant minority of individuals intimidated by the successes of their peers

of African heritage, and fearful of increased competition.132 Like other liberal Afro-Puerto

Ricans and their Cuban counterparts, their efforts to look past race and create a unified national-

liberal consensus resulted in the subsuming of race without treating the evils of racism.133

Therefore, despite Barbosa’s efforts to approach the issue and integrate it into the discussion, it

became possible to discuss and use Barbosa in historical narratives without confronting the race

question.

This demonstrates the internal conflict and uncertainty of Barbosa when confronting the

race issue, best demonstrated by the piece titled El Esqueleto. It was written in 1918 and can

found at the very end Problema de razas, compiled by his daughter Pilar Barbosa, herself a

renowned historian. This article presents Puerto Rico as a family hiding a skeleton that harms the

128 Barbosa, 3:35–38. 129 Barbosa, 3:63. 130 Jesse Hoffnung-Garskof, “To Abolish the Law of Castes: Merit, Manhood and the Problem of Colour in the Puerto Rican Liberal Movement, 1873-92,” Social History 36, no. 3 (August 2011): 312–42, https://doi.org/10.1080/03071022.2011.601150. 131 Barbosa, Problema de razas, 3:31. 132 Barbosa, 3:72–73. 133 Hoffnung-Garskof, “To Abolish the Law of Castes.” 42

people. However if the secret is unveiled to the world, the revelation would shame the country by

weakening their stance in the world. Therefore, despite the fact that the skeleton harms Puerto

Rico, only those who wish to harm Puerto Rico would reveal this skeleton. One might justify

revealing this secret under the pretense of seeking reform or progress, but this is a lie presented to destroy the island. This issue must be addressed, but in the privacy of the "home." Barbosa

then concludes by saying that Puerto Rican people harbor these secrets, and as a young people lack the ability to hide these skeletons. He instead ends by asking if we Puerto Ricans should be helping make the revelation of the skeleton to foreign peoples easier than it already is by discussing the problem aloud.134

El Esqueleto does not make an explicit mention of race. Yet, it is clear Pilar Barbosa

believed the piece was discussing racism, specifically her father’s approach to the problem of racism on the island.135 Given her position, I believe it is fair to take her interpretation seriously.

This piece demonstrates that Barbosa was well aware of the race issue and very concerned about

it. He was aware of the shadow it casted on the Puerto Rican people. However, he decided he

had to prioritize and silence himself out of fear of incurring greater harm to the island. Some

historians have argued that Barbosa forsook his race and focused on his politics since the

increasing influence of the Grand Puerto Rican family narrative made discussing race even more

difficult. Therefore, in an effort to achieve his goals, Barbosa seemingly abandoned race and

focused on statehood and class politics as a way of helping the island in general. This then made

Barbosa a race traitor.136 They then argue that the narrative we see in Problema de razas is not

134 Barbosa, Problema de razas, 3:189–91. 135 Sonia Labrador-Rodríguez, “Mulatos Entre Blancos: José Celso Barbosa y Antonio S. Pedreira: Lo Fronterizo En Puerto Rico Al Cambio de Siglo (1896-1937),” Revista Iberoamericana 65, no. 188–189 (December 7, 1999): 714. 136 Jimenez-Roman, “Un Hombre (Negro) Del Pueblo: José Celso Barbosa and the Puerto Rican ‘Race’ towards Whiteness,” 57. 43

his, but his daughter’s, Pilar Barbosa, who compiled his articles into the book. That Barbosa was mired by self-contradiction on race and his daughter attempted to use her father’s credibility to make her point and combat the growing silencing on race on the island.137

It is difficult to make a judgement here on whether he made the right choice, or whether it

was a betrayal of both his dedication to ideology and his race. However, it does above, all else

represent, the conflicted struggle that Barbosa as an individual was faced with. It demonstrates

the multiplicity of options and concerns that plagued his mind and his effort to reconcile his

views with reality. His framework of liberalism did an admirable job of incorporating the

contradictions of identity, nation and class but was unable to seamlessly confront and resolve the

race question. Instead, we are left with a failed effort to confront the issue that only facilitated

the silence that encompassed race, and eventually Barbosa himself.

Conclusion

This last piece, El Esqueleto, is especially interesting because of the confusion and

personal conflict it contains. It does not present a specific answer, and the tentative answer it

does provide feels hollow. It does not seem to pierce to the fundamental root of the problem as

so many of Barbosa’s policies attempted to do. Because of this, and his general treatment of the

race issue, he appears to lack a unified interpretation of racism and how to confront it as a nation.

I say this not as a critique, but as a way of highlighting the complexity of the challenge. This captures the uncertain and changing nature of Barbosa’s vision for the future as the historical moment changed over time.

137 Labrador-Rodríguez, “Mulatos Entre Blancos,” 714, 718. 44

I do mostly agree that Barbosa was fairly consistent with his ideals and policies. He

continued fighting for statehood, workers’ rights and his vision of progress until his final days.

The letters he shared with Roberto H. Todd, a fellow Republican leader, proves his consistency.

One from April 20, 1921 made the same arguments on Americanization and democratization on the island as he did in early 1900s.138 However, he appeared to have become more and more

concerned with the future of PR, as he shares in his letters to Roberto H Todd who at the time

was working to represent Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rican Republican Party in Washington. In these letters he shared his concerns about the increasing “indoctrination” of the Puerto Rican youth in pursuing nationalist sentiments. He feared that the political situation on the island under a particularly bad US appointed governor, who favored La Union more than the Republicans, would result in the perpetual loss of power or the Republican Party and therefore end PR’s hope of real equality and statehood.139 He seems to be coming to the realization that something is

changing and that a point of no return is approaching. This further emphasizes Barbosa’s

awareness of the world around him despite his seeming immutability in politics.

I link this increasing anxiety to changes in the political moment, especially following

1917 in which the Jones Act was passed. The act modified the civilian government of Puerto

Rico to allow for greater separation of power, while still maintaining ultimate power with the

US-appointed Governor. Most importantly, this bill granted all Puerto Ricans American citizenship, therefore fundamentally shifting the nature of the US-Puerto Rican relationship. On

one hand, it was a great step towards creating a permanent bond between Puerto Rico and the

United States, and served to further integrate Puerto Rico into the Union. Barbosa and his many

138 Correspondence from José Celso Barbosa to Roberto H. Todd, 20 April 1921, Digital Archive, Colección Roberto H. Todd, Universidad Sagrado Corazón, San Juan, Puerto Rico, USA. 139 Correspondence from José Celso Barbosa to Roberto H. Todd, 12 February 1921. 45

allies were mostly in favor of this change. However, it also solidified the colonial nature of the

relationship. The optimism and vision that had characterized the generation of 98, including

Muñoz Rivera and Barbosa, was fading away.140 In its place the debate shifted to focus more on

the nature of the United States’ relationship with Puerto Rico, and the status question within the

colonial context. This marked a transition in politics that was accentuated by the death of

Barbosa and Muñoz Rivera in 1921 and 1917 respectively.

This new context, which would give birth to the generación del 30, presented radically

different views on politics and the future from that which Barbosa and Muñoz Rivera had been

living in for most of their lives. The United States had become accustomed to their role as an imperial republic and managed to create a niche in which Puerto Rico and their people could fit as subjects. One of Barbosa’s greatest fears had come to fruition: the Puerto Rican people had come to accept their colonial position. Those who rejected this order did not seek to reform it, but rejected the earlier autonomists’ model altogether, shifting over the debate on to how to navigate the nation within a purely colonial context. The generación del 30 sought to define

Puerto Rican identity in rejection of the US, as opposed to Barbosa who rejected the possibility

of Puerto Rico ever returning to being a colony as it was under Spain. The moment of possibility

had closed, for both Puerto Rican and American people.

The generación del 30 began constructing a new Puerto Rican identity and historical

memory focused on highlighting the struggle for autonomy and independence, and in this

narrative the vision of Barbosa and his followers proved to be unacceptable. The generación del

30 glorification of a purely Spanish past went against Barbosa’s continual rejection of the

legacies of Spanish rule, and Barbosa’s Americanizing policies seemingly rejected the innateness

140 Córdova, Luis Sánchez Morales, 56. 46 of the Puerto Rican identity. However, Barbosa was not the only leader who has been politicized in the historiography. Muñoz Rivera was utilized in the historical narrative, with his ideals and vision flattened to fit the new nationalist message. In doing so, the period between annexation in

1898 and the Jones act becomes nothing more than a transitional period, erasing the context in which Barbosa and Muñoz Rivera lived and therefore the relevance of their vision. Their memories were thus co-opted, Muñoz Rivera as a sign of Autonomous purity and Barbosa as a silent idol of opposition.

Avenida Muñoz Rivera and Avenida Barbosa run parallel to one another on both sides of the main campus of the Universidad de Puerto Rico. However, between them is the Avenida

Ponce de Leon¸ named after the first ever Spanish governor of the island. It runs directly in front of the University and connects it to the urban center of San Juan before rejoining with Avenida

Muñoz Rivera. This road placement again highlights the perceived relationships between

Barbosa and Muñoz Rivera. What truly separates the two is the Hispanic past. Barbosa was openly hostile to the Hispanic past and sought to break its political legacies in favor of progress for the people. Muñoz Rivera on the other hand, while not specifically committed to the Hispanic past, was demonstrably more willing to work and agree with Spanish political elements.

Therefore, these roads not only demonstrate how Barbosa was sidelined during the nation building project, it also demonstrates the central role of a Hispanic past. The moment of transition, exemplified by Barbosa and Muñoz Rivera, is defined in relation to the Hispanic past and, most importantly, their relationship to the autonomist present as defined by the PPD.

Both these leaders and their entire work goes beyond creating the foundations for modern politics. There were other alternatives, negotiations and opportunities. To look at this as predetermined or as anything else other than a highly complicated conversation between Puerto

47

Rican, American, and international influences misses the point. It is true that their moment did pass and that, in hindsight the rise of a colonial state seems obvious and inevitable. The signs are there from the very moment of annexation. But at the time, that wasn’t clear. There was hope for integration and justice. Understanding this allows us to better comprehend how our modern

Puerto Rican identity developed, and provides a valuable alternative when discussing our political future. Barbosa’s imagined future is gone. The Jíbaro is here to stay. Yet Puerto Rico can still escape its colonial position, and our options are more numerous than what one would be led to believe at first glance. The fundamental beliefs that drove Barbosa and his fellows can still be used and applied to our reality, largely because of the uncertainty and flexibility of pursuing these ideals. We must simply keep in mind the work of our próceres and our history; the real one.

48

Bibliography

Barbosa de Rosario, Pilar. De Baldorioty a Barbosa: historia del autonomismo puertorriqueno, 1887-1896. Obra de JoséCelso Barbosa ; v. 5. San Juan de Puerto Rico: Imprenta Venezuela, 1957. ———. El ensayo de la autonomía en Puerto Rico, 1897-1898. San Juan de P.R.: Obra de José C̀ elso Barbosa, 1986. ———. La politica en dos tiempos: “aletofobia.” Obra de José Celso Barbosa ; 8. San Juan de Puerto Rico: Editorial La Obra de Jose Celso Barbosa, 1978. Barbosa, José Celso. José Celso Barbosa, pionero en el cooperativismo puertorriqueño, siglo XIX. Edited by Pilar Barbosa. Documentos para la historia ;; vol. I-2. San Juan de Puerto Rico: Obra de Jose Celso Barbosa y Alcala, Inc., 1982. ———. Orientando al pueblo, 1900-1921. Edited by Pilar Barbosa de Rosario. Vol. 4. 5 vols. Obra de José Celso Barbosa. San Juan, PR: Imprenta Venezuela, 1939. Barbosa, JoséCelso. Problema de razas. Edited by Pilar Barbosa de Rosario. Vol. 3. 5 vols. La obra de José Celso Barbosa. San Juan de Puerto Rico: Imprenta Venezuela, 1937. Calderón Rivera, José A. La Pluma Como Arma : La Construcción de La Identidad Nacional de Luis Muñoz Rivera. Santurce, P.R.: Análisis, 2010. Colección Roberto H. Todd, Digitized, Universidad Sagrado Corazón, San Juan, Puerto Rico, USA. Córdova, Gonzalo F. “Formación y Desarrollo Del Partido Liberal Reformista, 1864-1886.” Cupey 7, no. 1–2 (December 1990): 139–64. ———. Luis Sánchez Morales: Servidor Ejemplar. 1. ed. Santurce, P.R. : San Juan, P.R: Obra de José Celso Barbosa y Alcalá ; Editorial Académica, 1991. ———. Then as Now: The Statehood Ideology of Barbosa and Martinez Nadal. San Juan, P.R.: Barbosa Press, 2008. Díaz Quiñones, Arcadio. La Memoria Rota. San Juan, P.R.: Huracán, 1996. Fragoso Rivera, Edwin A. El Partido Autonomista Histórico, Puro u Ortodoxo su transición al Partido Republicano Puertorriqueño: 1897-1904. 1st ed. Lajas, PR: Editorial Akelarre, 2014. Gotay, Samuel Silva. Catolicismo y política en Puerto Rico: bajo España y Estados Unidos, siglos XIX y XX. La Editorial, UPR, 2005. Hoffnung-Garskof, Jesse. “To Abolish the Law of Castes: Merit, Manhood and the Problem of Colour in the Puerto Rican Liberal Movement, 1873-92.” Social History 36, no. 3 (August 2011): 312–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071022.2011.601150. Jimenez-Roman, Miriam. “Un Hombre (Negro) Del Pueblo: José Celso Barbosa and the Puerto Rican ‘Race’ towards Whiteness.” In Race, Front and Center: Perspectives on Race

49

among Puerto Ricans, edited by Carlos Vargas-Ramos, 1st ed., 41–60. NYC, NY: Centro Press, 2016. Labrador-Rodríguez, Sonia. “Mulatos Entre Blancos: José Celso Barbosa y Antonio S. Pedreira: Lo Fronterizo En Puerto Rico Al Cambio de Siglo (1896-1937).” Revista Iberoamericana 65, no. 188–189 (December 7, 1999): 713–31. Luque de Sánchez, María Dolores. La ocupacion Norteamericana y la Ley Foraker: (La opinión pública Purertorriquena) 1898-1904. 1st ed. Río Piedras, PR: Editorial Universitaria, Universidad de Puerto Rico, 1980. Luque, Maria Dolores. “Los conflictos de la modernidad: la elite politica en Puerto Rico, 1898- 1904.” Revista de Indias Revista de Indias 57, no. 211 (1997): 695–727. Marrero, Carmen. El pensamiento de José Celso Barbosa. Hato Rey, P.R.: Esmaco, 1976. Maza, Sarah C. Thinking about History, 2017. Negrón-Portillo, Mariano. El autonomismo puertorriqueño, su transformación ideológica, 1895- 1914: la prensa en el análisis social, La Democracia de Puerto Rico. Colección Semilla. Río Piedras, PR: Ediciones Huracán, 1981. ———. Las turbas republicanas, 1900-1904. Río Piedras, P.R.: Ediciones Huracán, 1990. Ramos Mendez, Mario. Posesión del ayer: la nacionalidad cultural en la estadidad. Coleccion Visiones y cegueras. San Juan, P.R.: Isla Negra Editores, 2007. Sartorius, David A. Ever Faithful: Race, Loyalty, and the Ends of Empire in Spanish Cuba. Durham: Duke University Press, 2013. Scarano, Francisco A. Puerto Rico: Cinco Siglos de Historia. Third Edition. San Juan: McGraw- Hill Interamericana, 2008. Shaffer, Kirwin R. Black Flag Boricuas: Anarchism, Antiauthoritarianism, and the Left in Puerto Rico, 1897-1921. University of Illinois Press, 2013. Torres-Robles, Carmen L. “La Mitificación y Desmitificación Del Jíbaro Como Símbolo de La Identidad Nacional Puertorriqueña.” Bilingual Review / La Revista Bilingüe 24, no. 3 (1999): 241–53. United States. War Dept. Puerto Rico Census Office, Joseph Prentiss Sanger, Henry Gannett, and Walter Francis Willcox. Report on the Census of Porto Rico, 1899. Washington : Govt. print. off., 1900. http://archive.org/details/reportoncensusof00unitiala.

50