Ruling authorities of Mexico reform [解決]

The current ruling authorities of Mexico go through the colonial viceroyalty, the War of Independence, the First Empire, the Federal Republic, the Second Empire, and United Mexican States.

I propose that the Federal Republic and the United Mexican States are the same ruling authority. 

Currently the Fed. Rep. spans the years 1823 to 1905 and the UMS is 1905 to today with the 2nd Empire in the middle of the Fed. Rep. period. There was no change of government in 1905. There was a monetary reform in 1905 where the coins changed their legends from “Republica Mexicana” to “Estados Unidos Mexicanos” (which is why I think the cutoff was initially made in 1905) but the president from 1884 to 1911 was the same man. The date of 1905 does not meet the threshold for different ruling authorities set out in the Guidelines. In fact, the 1824 constitution explicitly names Mexico as “Estados Unidos Mexicanos" so even the “United Mexican States” had been around for 81 years before 1905.

There is an argument to be made for separating the ruling authorities based on 1824, 1857, and 1917 constitutions since they marked major departures from what came before, but given the inertia of the coins pages, merging Federal Republic (1823–1905) and United Mexican States (1905–date) is the cleanest and easiest solution, viz. consolidation would be easier than recategorization.

I would also argue that like the Mexican War of Independence (1810–1821) ruling authority, there should be a ruling authority for the Mexican Revolution (1910–1920) since a number of armies, states, localities, and provisional governments emitted currency without the authority of a central government during this time. This would obviate the need for separate revolutionary issuing authorities in Mexico since all issuers from this time issued pesos and none did so seeking to create a political entity separate from the nation. Also, from the guidelines: “Only when the territory of an issuer suffers a sudden, significant, and long-term change, resulting in a discontinuity of its currency, then the change result in a different issuer” The Revolution was sudden and significant, but it was not long term.

dkallen78

I propose that the Federal Republic and the United Mexican States are the same ruling authority. 

I agree. Good points, well made.  No change of constitution at 1905 is the key point here imo.

Also agree on a ruling authority for the Mexican Revolution (1910–1920).

Why did the coins change from “Republica Mexicana” to “Estados Unidos Mexicanos” in 1905? There must have been a reason. It seems similar to the replacement of "République" by “Empire” on French coins in 1809. There was no change in government, just a decision to abandon the old, out-dated term.

Regarding the War of Independence and Revolution, surely we should aim to identify the actually ruling authorities rather than use catch-all titles? Perhaps we should treat the army, state and local issues in a similar way to European notgeld?

ceh2019

Why did the coins change from “Republica Mexicana” to “Estados Unidos Mexicanos” in 1905? There must have been a reason.

Regarding the change in legend, I can't say with certainty. The monetary reform was spurred by international calls to move Mexico to the gold standard; a push that was led by Mexico's principal foreign investor, the United States. Perhaps the change in legend was a signal to the US that Mexico intended to stabilize its economy to be more favorable to American foreign investors?

Perhaps we should treat the army, state and local issues in a similar way to European notgeld?

That's definitely an option but the guidelines say that an issuing authority (which is how notgeld are categorized in the catalog) should be changed only 

when the territory of an issuer suffers a sudden, significant, and long-term change, resulting in a discontinuity of its currency.

The territory of Mexico did not change over the course of the Revolution, nor was there a discontinuity in its currency as demonstrated by the humble centavo coin.

Notgeld, on the other hand were introduced, in the wake of WWI which did result in a “sudden, significant, and long-term change” in territory for Germany and Austria. 

Although we're beyond the scope of “Ruling Authorities,” this is why I think the state-level issuing authorities for the Mexican Revolution should be removed. 

Getting back to Ruling Authorities, one of the guidelines for a change is a distinct historic period. I think the Revolution as a historic period is a better category than creating authorities for the individual armies, generals, states, localities, etc. 

If we don't know why the title changed, can I suggest we hold off merging the two until we do know? Regarding the states, I think you may be over-interpreting the guidelines. The states weren't issuing their own money before the revolution, so we don't need to wait for a “significant” change to use them as issuing authorities. Otherwise, we'll have all the states in a single section, despite their names clearly appearing on the notes. That's no way to organize a catalogue. Having said that, the guidelines on issuing authorities are already causing a complete mess elsewhere, so perhaps your interpretation is more accurate than mine. Either way, we need to apply some common sense and keep the different issuers separate.

@ceh2019

I'll keep digging for the why of the legend change, but there is no historical reason for a separation of ruling authorities at this point. It also doesn't meet the guidelines. There are no changes to individual heads of state, let alone none listed on the coins. There's no change in the form of government or governing body. And there's no change in historical period or in the name of the issuer. And even if we don't know the why of the legend change, we do know why there was a change in coinage at that time and it's not because of a change in government. Given all that, I would argue that knowing the why is irrelevant since it has no bearing on the ruling authority, much like the change in legend on French coins in 1808/1809 did not necessitate a break in ruling authority.

Regarding the states, it's messy. Take this note for example: N#222827 After Gen. Huerta had Madero killed in 1913, large parts of the country rose up in another rebellion. The Huertista-controlled city of Mazatlán fell under siege. The note says General Treasury of the State of Sinaloa but it was in fact issued by the interim governor trapped in the city while the rest of the state was under the control of Gen. Obregón. 

Should the issuing authority for this note be Mexico since Huerta was the internationally recognized head of state of Mexico and the decree authorizing their printing said they should be accepted nationwide? Should it be Sinaloa because the legal decree authorizing it was signed by the nominal governor who “ruled” exclusively from Mazatlán? Should it be the city of Mazatlán since their circulation was restricted to that city? 

Or this note: N#220315 It was issued by Gen. Felipe Riveros, the elected governor of Sinaloa initially under Madero, then Huerta, but Huerta had him arrested and named another governor. But then Riveros set up a rebel government which was loyal to Carranza but switched loyalties to Villa who eventually ordered him killed. He issued these banknotes and two others when he was in rebellion. Their acceptance was obligatory across multiple states depending on which general Riveros supported at the time.

Should the issuing authority remain Sinaloa because of the words on the note, despite the fact that Riveros was not acting with the authority of the state when they were issued? Should it be Mexico because they were used across state lines?

If we want to have the banknotes organized by the geographical names on the notes I'm okay with that, but it's a compromise that doesn't recognize the reality of what was happening. If we want to organize them by where they were issued, that's okay as well, but it isn't reflective of the authority that ordered their printing. Ultimately, I think this period of Mexican paper money is a unique case that doesn't fit neatly into the intent of “Issuing Authority.” 

When you talk about a “change in coinage”, are you talking about the debasement of the gold coins and most of the silver? If that was what prompted the change, we should be able to find some record of it. Let's just give others a little while and see what they come up. The “why” is never irrelevant and we may all learn something.

Regarding the two notes you mention, the notes themselves tell us who issued them. Where they circulated after they were issued is a separate matter which we should record in the comments section. After all, Mexican pesos circulated around the world but we don't catalogue them under “Earth”.

There is definitely a record of the 1905 Monetary Reform. This is a good source for the why of it, but it doesn't get into the legend change. The gold coins weren't debased, they were increased in fineness (see these two 5 peso gold coins [N#15017][N#28708]). The silver coins were debased. This is because until the monetary reform, the peso was locked to the price of silver. The silver coins were essentially bullion. The silver was debased to encourage its use as coinage. 

The “why” is never irrelevant and we may all learn something.

I agree with the principle of what you're saying, but since the change in monetary policy and coin design is not directly or indirectly tied to a change in territory, type of government, or leadership, it should have no bearing on the ruling authority. 

Regarding the two notes you mention, the notes themselves tell us who issued them

They absolutely do not. This note was not issued by the State of Sinaloa. Nor was this one issued by the General Treasury of the State. The former was issued by a general in support of Pancho Villa, in opposition to the eventual victor; and the other was issued by a provisional governor in support of a third faction while trapped in a city under assault by a fourth. And yet they both are issued under the authority of Sinaloa?

After all, Mexican pesos circulated around the world but we don't catalogue them under “Earth”.

This is a good point but it only goes to show that the definition of what an issuing authority is, is important. If we want to keep a vestige of the current system because it provides better categorization, let's do that, but let's at least provide more granularity to show that the first note was issued by Gral. Riveros and the second by the vestiges of the Huertista government.

Regarding the gold coinage, it was substantially debased. Look at the amount of gold in the two coins rather than just the fineness. I agree that the switch was to a gold standard. It seems that gold had continued to be struck at the old Spanish standard even when silver's value fell dramatically in the late 19th century.

As to what caused the change in legend, the first thing we must accept (since it's staring us all in the face) is that a change took place. To ignore it completely is simply not acceptable. One very reliable website is Archontology, which has this to say:

In informal official use, Estados Unidos Mexicanos is often replaced by República Mexicana.

I'd question whether coin legends are “informal official” but it implies that both terms were used. However, this site is clear that the constitution used Estados Unidos Mexicanos between 1846 and 1853 and again from 1857 onwards (at least for those who opposed Maximillian). Earlier changes between the two terms were ignored on the coins (this piece covers the whole period and used República Mexicana throughout), so it's a wider issue than what occured in 1905.

As to the notes, I would suggest that the comments field is the place to discuss which general authorized the issuance of a note. I assume they at least claimed to be in control of the State of Sinaloa, even if not all of the state was actually under their authority?

Regarding the gold coinage…

conceded 

I'd question whether coin legends are “informal official”

E Pluribus Unum. 

And the first official use of “Estados Unidos Mexicanos” was in 1824 after the overthrow of the First Empire. But again, it's irrelevant. There was no change in political power in 1905. There was no change in territory. There was no change in the form of government. I respectfully posit that whoever made the initial break in ruling authority did so in error without knowing the history of Mexico. 

Again, I have to appeal to the guidelines. If there is a new head of state on the coins, such as a king, the ruling authority changes. That is not the case here. If there isn't a head of state, then there are four criteria by which to judge a change in ruling authority:

1. Form of government. Mexico operated under the same constitution from 1857 to 1911ish. A new constitution wasn't adopted until 1917.

2. A specific government or governing body. The government of Porfirio Díaz ruled from 1884 to 1911 under the authority of the 1857 constitution. 

3. A distinct historic period. The Porfiriato is generally considered to be from 1884 to 1910 and the Revolution is 1910 to 1920.

4. The official name of the issuer. The official name of Mexico from 1857 until now has been Estados Unidos Mexicanos. 

1905 marks a major change in Mexico's monetary policy. There is lots of literature on it. A drastic change in coinage occurred and it is an interesting topic from a numismatic and historical perspective, but it has no bearing on the ruling authority in Mexico. 

Regarding the notes, I think there's a broader discussion to be had about what an issuing authority is. Both issuers claimed to represent the “Estado de Sinaloa” but neither could claim legitimate electoral authority to issue the notes. It's a convenient way to geographically categorize notes (as is done with the Hawaii overprints, erroneously in my opinion), but it isn't reflective of the authority authorizing their emission. 

As an aside, I am enjoying this discussion and I hope you don't think there's any rancor from my side. I am grateful you are helping me refine my opinions and knowledge.

ceh2019

That's no way to organize a catalogue. 

This is a point I overlooked earlier and it's a good one. All the resources I've seen categorizing Revolution money group them by states of issuance. The closest Numista comes to being able to do that is via the Issuing Authority field. I'd still like to see more granularity but I think a different thread is the place to have that discussion.

First, don't worry, I've wanted to get to the bottom of this issue myself for a long time. As I see it, there are two completely disconnected things. On the one hand, there's what the Mexican constitution said. This goes (based on Archontology):

1821-1823 Imperio Mexicano

1823-1824 México

1824-1835 Estados Unidos Mexicanos

1835-1846 República Mexicana

1846-1853 Estados Unidos Mexicanos

1853-1857 República Mexicana

1857-           Estados Unidos Mexicanos

1862-1863 México

1863-1867 Imperio Mexicano

with the last two only controlling parts of the country. On the other hand, we have the coins, which say

1822-1823 Imperio Mexicano

1824-1905 República Mexicana

1864-1867 Imperio Mexicano

1905-           Estados Unidos Mexicanos

although pesos were struck until 1909 with República Mexicana. There's virtually no common ground between the two, except for the imperial periods. If I understand correctly, your plan is for a single ruling authority between 1823 and 2022, allowing for Maximillian's empire as an interlude. What would we call it, Republic or United States? Both would be wrong according to the constitution at certain times. What we currently have is

Agustín de Iturbide (1822-1823)

Federal Republic (1823-1905)

Maximillian I (1863-1867)

Estados Unidos Mexicanos (1905-)

I'm not sure where “Federal” Republic has come from, certainly not the coins or constitution, so a change is definitely needed. The question is whether we're happy to compress all the “Estados Unidos” and “República” phases into a single ruling authority? As a numismatist, that seems wrong to me but perhaps a Mexican historian would take a different view.

I'll concede that I'm not a historian, merely an enthusiast. 

From an exclusively coin-based perspective, the 1905 cut off makes a lot of sense since it marks a clear break in epochs from a numismatic point of view. From a paper money perspective it doesn't work as well. If we look at the banknotes of Banco de Londres y Mexico as an example (like this $5) there's no difference in design between the 1902 notes and the 1907 notes. The remnants of the federal government were authorizing private banks to print money as late as 1914.

But, to get down to the epochs of Mexican history…

what we have:

New Spain

War of Independence

1st Empire

Fed Republic

Empire Strikes Back

USM

This works for categorizing coins types but it is not reflective of ruling authority. I think a more accurate portrayal of the governments after Iturbide would look more like this:

1st Republic (1824–1857) — This was the first government after the 1st Empire

There's an argument to be made for the Unitary Republic (1836–1847) of Santa Ana to be included here, but not a strong one in my opinion. Even though the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848 brought about a massive loss in territory for Mexico, the 1824 constitution was restored, and as you showed with your coinage example, the silver real persisted through all of this. 

2nd Republic (1857–1914/17) — This was a brand new constitution with a government different enough from the 1824 constitution and the one Santa Ana had dictated, that it sparked a civil war. The ambiguity about its end date is due to the fact there was no recognized federal authority after Huerta was exiled in 1914 until the new constitution in 1917.

2nd Empire (1863–1867) — Max had coins minted so he definitely gets a slot

Revolution (1910–1920) — Lots of people issuing coins and paper money; too many for individual slots

3rd Republic (1917–date) — This is where we are today. The form of government is “republic” but “Estados Unidos Mexicanos” is the official name of the country. Each of the previous republics called themselves EUM as well so what it should be called in the catalog is up for debate. I would lean towards EUM/USM since no one says 3rd Mexican Republic (but they do say 2nd or 1st Mexican Republic).

The reason I suggested joining the three republics was to avoid the massive effort it would take to re-categorize those coins but creating separate ruling authorities would be more reflective of the political situation. 

Is there some mechanism/category by which we can distinguish pre- and post-1905 coinage? From a numismatic point of view it was a pretty significant event. It changed the design and composition of the coins and even the underpinnings of the financial system to a degree. But it wasn't a political change. 

Regarding the notes, it's quite common for them not to reflect changes in ruling authority, especially when issued by a bank rather than the government. Bank of England notes only started showing the monarch in 1960. Consequently, I think we just decide on a list of ruling authorities and assign them to the notes by date. I suspect a lot of note collectors don't care too much about this aspect.

For the coins, your breaks in 1857 and 1917 do reflect the two constitutions which followed the initial one of 1824 and so could be used as a basis for categorization. However, there must have been some kind of legal document issued when the title changed in 1835, 1846 and 1853, so I fear this ignores some details. My current inclination is either to stick with what the coins say (with comments added to all that were issued during a period when the official name didn't match what was on the coins) or to have a list based on the actual titles of the states (perhaps enumerated) and with a comment when what was on the coin didn't match the official name. Coins can have multiple issuing authorities, so it will work. Either way, it's a bit of effort but then the accurate information is available.

For the revolutionary period, I'm inclined to say we have the right set up already, with issues at least saying they belong to a particular state listed there. I don't see how we benefit from including them in the main Mexican listing but perhaps I'm missing something. Obviously, if we can expand the comments sections that would be great.

As to the currency reform of 1905, it's by no means unique and I don't think we can claim a “new” currency was introduced, so we just have to keep what we have.

it's quite common for [banknotes] not to reflect changes in ruling authority

Except that there was no change of ruling authority in 1905. 

I suspect a lot of note collectors don't care

Judging by the fact that it's just me and you talking about this, I think you're right.

if we want to do post-1st empire ruling authorities based on legal documents, we'd have this

1824 Constitution (1824–1857) 

7 Constitutional Laws (1836–1843)

The Organic Bases (1843–1847)

1857 Constitution (1857–1917)

Maximilian I (1864–1867)

1917 Constitution (1917–date)

If we want to do it based on historical periods it would look more like

1st republic

central republic

2nd republic

2nd empire

restored republic

porfiriato

revolution

USM

If we want to do it based on the name of the issuer it resembles

mexico (1824–date)

Maximilian

revolution

If we want to keep the current 1905 ruling authority change because it works for categorizing coins and Numista is a coin-first catalog, that's fine and I can walk away from this issue, but it isn't reflective of the intent of the Ruling Authorities category. 

Regarding the issuers, I'm fine w/ what we have if we remove “Revolutionary” from the name to account for the local private banks, then notes can be categorized by the state they were issued in, this post sums it up very well.

Yes, it does seem to be just us two. The more I look at this, the more unsatisfactory any system seems. However, I do agree with your suggestion to remove the word “Revolutionary” so that all state isssues can be included there.

Have you been in touch with the coin referees for Mexico, adanieluy and Jasanche? They'll have to be on board if changes are to be made.

I'll reach out to both of them this weekend. adanieluy is the coref w/ me for the Mexico banknotes so we've talked a bit

Any progress on this?

In spite there are good points on the previous posts, I think we should focus on the main points: Issuing authority on one side, and monetary currency on the other.

About issuing authorities, I see the Colonial period is clear; no need of changes. With regards to Mexico period (Imperio, República, Estados Unidos, etc.) I feel they all are basically the same; the Central Government (or Republic, or USM, or whatever you want to call them) was the issuer, using different names. 

And on the other hand the Revolutionary issuers obviously are different issuers than the (official) Government, I would group them all in a single section, as “Revolutionary issues”; not sure if it is valuable to make sub sections for the individual issues (Sinaloa, Chihuahua, etc.), but I'm not against it. In general, they all were local issues, but not easy to separate or define, as said, cause of the different governors, head of the movement, etc. I would not like to make them all separate issuers, as this would complicate things to basic collectors; the “Specialized” collectors, who want to have them identified and separate, most possible is they have good bibliography to identify different movements, heads and delegates.

On the second point, currency, they don't need to match the government periods, country names or revolutionary movements. Only relevant when there is a real currency reform, specially if real value changes, like on Real, Cruzeiro, Cruzado at Brasil, Peso, Peso Ley, Austral at Argentina or Peso, Nuevo Peso, peso Uruguayo at Uruguay, or when there are 2 paralell currencies as Peso Cubano and Peso Convertible at Cuba. In case of only change is the currency name (Mexican Nuevo Peso to Peso), or country/issuer denomination, there is not a real currency change, only impact will be that will be different type of coin or note.

Please note, I don't mind to be against guidelines. Guidelines are made to have a guide of how things should be, and to unify the catalog, but, in fact, there are so much variations, specially on different countries and regions, that would be impossible to cover all points to make strict rules, I think we must try to understand the “Spirit” of the guidelines, and try to follow them as close as possible, but without complicating things or making them confuse. The main meaning of the catalog is to give users a refference of information, as clear and accurate as possible, as well as the possiblity to register their coins/notes and be able to swap material; everything for mutual convenience.

Any needs here?

This issue is good!