During the quarter-century following the conquest of the Aztec Confederacy in 1519–1521, Fernando Cortés, the major figure in that epic achievement of Spanish arms in the New World, acquired a great estate in central and southern México consisting of the tributes and labor services of populous Indian towns, extensive land holdings, mines, Indian and Negro slaves, and business enterprises. In 1529 Charles V conferred upon Cortés the title of Marqués del Valle de Oaxaca, and subsequently these properties and interests were collectively designated in colonial records as the Marquesado de Cortés. The Marquesado, which Cortés, with royal authorization, set up in 1535 as a mayorazgo, or entailed estate, was inherited at his death in 1547 by his legitimate son, Martín Cortés, born of his second marriage. Subject to various modifications and vicissitudes, the Estate remained in the hands of Cortés’ descendants during the entire colonial period.

Students of revolutionary movements often find that the early leaders were motivated more by a desire for power than by revolutionary idealism. After the movement triumphs, the original chiefs are hailed by their followers as farsighted patriots who sought to reform the country. Hindsight renders this conclusion easy, for the later reforms and legislation appear to flow from the uprising. But it must be remembered that the nature of the revolution may have changed during the fighting, and that those who launched the uprising could not perceive its entire course. It is difficult for historians to cut through the aura of idealism that surrounds these leaders, for no people wishes to hear that its hero was merely seeking personal power. Yet a careful examination of the origins of a revolution is essential to understanding the later developments.

Few epochs in the history of the Portuguese colonial empire have received less attention from historians than the sixty years from 1580–1640 when Portugal and Spain were jointly ruled by the Spanish Hapsburgs, Philip II, III, IV (or I, II, III by Portuguese reckoning). The union of the crowns in 1580 brought together the two greatest maritime empires of the sixteenth century, yet, curiously, this phenomenon has remained relatively unstudied. Portuguese neglect is based on the premise that the union with Spain was a “Babylonian Captivity“ during which the Spanish rulers and their policies destroyed in a half century what had taken the Portuguese two hundred years to build. Nationalism has prompted Portuguese scholars to concentrate on the loss of independence in 1580 or its triumphant restitution in 1640, but although this motivation is still present, a new generation of Portuguese historians has begun to turn from the shibboleths of their nineteenth-century predecessors. Spanish historiography, on the other hand, disdains the topic; hardly surprising since even today to many Spaniards “a Portuguese is a Galician who speaks poorly.” Moreover, there is the embarrassing fact that the Portuguese were able to wrest their independence from Spanish rule.

In December of 1858, while the press of the United States preoccupied itself with the fearful prospect of a war between the North and South, the newspapers of the Río de la Plata expressed great alarm at the more imminent danger of a clash between the United States and Paraguay. This alarm was generated by the gathering of a formidable American naval force in the estuary of the Río de la Plata, and prompted the American Minister to Brazil to notify Washington that “Great excitement prevailed on the subject of our expedition.” He further reported that the Platine papers “teemed with unfriendly comments, warning all nations as to our supposed designs.”

The functions of the city are legion; and to a certain extent every city in Latin America performs nearly all of them. Trade and commerce, manufacturing and processing, communication and transportation, government and public administration, educational and cultural activities, religious and ceremonial observances, financial and personal services, servicing and repair, and recreation and welfare work, are a few of the better known categories. This list does not include, however, residence per se which is one of the principal raisons d’etre of cities in general. Moreover, even these better known urban functions can be subdivided into many varieties and classes, without in any way being exhaustive. Familiar examples are wholesale and retail trade; motor, rail, water, and air transportation; light and heavy manufacturing; and national, provincial, and local government and administration. In addition some of them tend to overlap, as in the cases of educational and cultural activities, or government and protection. Finally, the absolute and relative importance of any one of the functions, or of any particular combination of them, varies greatly from one city to another and in the same city from one time to another.