The September 15th 1779 Capture of Caio Cosina (St. George's Cay)
by Rolando Cocom
by Rolando Cocom
Introduction
The settlers of Belize, then known as the Bay of Honduras, endured several attacks by the Spaniards before the infamous Battle of St. George's Cay. There were attacks in 1716, 1724, 1733, 1747, 1751, 1754, 1779 and the aforementioned Battle of 1798 (Shoman 2000, 28; Burdon, 1931, 128-129).
 |
| Caio Cosina 1764 |
The September 15th 1779 attack, however, is
significant for various reasons such as:
1. The Baymen along with their ‘property’ (boats, enslaved
Africans) were captured and imprisoned
2. The Bay (Belize) remained
virtually uninhibited from 1779 - 783/1787
3. It impacted the development of the 1783 Treaty of
Versailles
4. It influenced the Settlers decisions
and desire to defend or evacuate the Settlement in 1797-98
5. It demonstrated the role of the Bay
(Belize) as a marginal colony in Anglo-Spanish policy and
6. It likely was one of the
greatest occasions of runaways in Belizean history
The 1779 attack was as a result of a recently declared war between
Spain and England in May which lasted until 1783 with the signing of Treaty of
Versailles (Sorsby
1969, 252).
The Shoremen (British settlers in the Mosquito Coast) had been
informed since August of 1779 via correspondence from Jamaica that the
Spaniards were preparing an attack and were requested to inform the Baymen (Ibid,
253).
However, that message did not reach the Baymen in time. Superintendent James Lawrie (from the Mosquito Coast) had failed to notify the Baymen. It is stated that “Lawrie was in the back country, and the inhabitants of Black River withheld the information” from him (Ibid).
An Eyewitness Account
 |
| British Settlements in Mex and C.A. shown (Thompson 2004) |
Edward Felix Hill who was a Baymen present at St. George’s Cay, at
the time, managed to escape the attack and flee the isle. He later, along with
other Baymen and enslaved Africans, made their way to the Mosquito Coast. In a
letter to the Colonial Office he described the capture:
On Wednesday
September 15th, 1779, at half past six in the morning the inhabitants on the
Key were alarmed by seeing nineteen Spanish pettiaguas to the Northward. At
eight o'clock the vessels came to anchor the Westward. The principal
inhabitants boarded the larges pettiagua and were told that war had been
declared between great Britain and Spain on May 11th.
At nine
o'clock the Commandant of Bacalar arrived in a captured English schooner, and
landing on the Key told the Inhabitants they were his prisoners and that their
goods and valuables were confiscate. They would be marched to Merida then
probably shipped to Havana. He promised that if they went quietly their
persons, papers and apparel should be untouched and "great tenderness
should be shown to the Ladies as well as the Mustie women and children and a
due attention on his part be paid to protect them from violence. . . He
likewise told them he had 600 soldiers then with him which the writer of this
doubts very much, even by one third, and indeed those he brought with him had
but little the appearance of soldiers many of them being Indians and the whole
of them very indifferently furnished with Cloaths, Accoutremeants, etc."
(About 140-160 landed).
The
Commandant's two sons and three or four more were the only persons that acted
as Officers or wore uniforms: the armed Indians being mostly in frocks and
trousers and some without the latter.
About 250 of
their slaves were taken on board by the Spaniards "mostly house
negroes" since those that cut the logwood were then up the River Belize (quoted
in Burdon 1931, 128-129).
Another colonial office record cited by Bolland informs us that:
There were
101 White people on the Key, when it was taken & 40 of mixed Colour… about
200 or 250 negroes, men, women, and children mostly House-negroes… the
principal part that carry on the Logwood & Mahogany cutting business were
then up the River (quoted in Bolland 2003, 31).
Bolland also makes reference to a
report which stated that “30 white men and 250 slaves from the Bay arrived at
the islands of Ruatan and Bonacca early in October” (quoted in Bolland 2003, 31). These
were some of the settlers who were not captured at the Cay or who
managed to escape. It is interesting that the Spaniards and Baymen were able to communicate. Perhaps, they had translators or were bilingual?
The Other Side
Roberto de Rivas Betancourt, the Governor of Yucatan, was ordered
by the President Matias de Galves of the auidiencia
of Guatemala on 15th August 1779 to eject the English from the Mosquito Coast (Sorsby 1969,
252). However, Rivas forces rather than attacking the Mosquito Coast
attacked the Bay of Honduras (Belize) (Ibid).
 |
| President M.Galves |
However, the rationale for the capture given by the Spaniards account is that the
Baymen had built forts at the Belize River, Caio Cosina (synonymous with ‘Cayo
Cosina’, ‘Cayo Kitchen’, or ‘St. George’s Cay’), and that the British were
making threats to Bacalar (Lanz 1905, 132; Asturias 1941, 47).
This justification for the attack is based upon the 1763 Treaty of
Paris which allowed the Baymen to extract logwood but prohibited the
establishment of governance and forts and declared Spanish sovereignty (Thompson 2004, 23).
However, P.A.B. Thompson makes the observation from a colonial
correspondence from the Mosquito Shore had stated that the demolition of Belize
River fort was carried out in 1764 (Ibid, 24). Furthermore, another colonial
record stated that St. George’s Cay was “defenceless” in 1779 (Bolland 2003,
30). Perhaps, the Spaniards as would any hegemonic power, both in the past and
present, developed this as a justification for war.
Governor Rivas had set sailed to Bacalar with 800 men before
making a successful attack on the British camps on the Rio Hondo (Asturias1941, 48). Unable to make his travel with the 800 men on canoes, he then used
the Baymen vessels to attack St. George’s Cay (Ibid). These facts are
consistent to the account by Edward Hill quoted above (Burdon 1931, 128-129).
However, one significant addition is the 50 more enslaved persons said to be
captured on the Cay, placing them at a total of 300 (Asturias 1941, 48; Lanz1905, 133).
Bolland hypothesis that the Spaniards had likely made attacks on
the mainland river holds true with Spanish historical sources (Bolland 2003,
31; Lanz 1905, 132). Besides taking the captives and their property at the Cay,
Rivas and his men burned more than forty “rancherias” or logwood/mahogany works
along the New River (Asturias 1941, 48; Lanz 1905, 133).
 |
| Fort Omoa, Honduras |
Slave Auction in Merida
 |
| Superintendent Despard, 1784-89 |
However, Bolland points out that they were “marched [from Bacalar]
to Merida and some [were] sent to
Cuba” (Bolland 2003, 31). The latter are believed to have returned after the
signing of the 1783 Treaty of Versailles (Thompson 2004, 28). In a dispatch of
1786 by Superintendent Despard, the number of woodcutters in the Bay is put at fifty five (Ibid, 29). Therefore, there is a vast
gap between the number of persons taken captive and those who returned (especially in regards to the enslaved population).
Mathew Restall informs us that many of the captives were auctioned
in Merida. He states:
 |
| Church of Jesus - Baptism in Merida |
 |
| Palacio de Gobierno, Merida |
Masta Geh Ketch - Wi Free
The capture of prisoners at St. George’s Cay did not constitute the
majority of population in the Bay at the time. St. George’s Cay was where the
‘principal inhabitants’ such as the “English settlers with their Wives Children
and Domestics” lived (quoted in Bolland 2003, 30).
In 1779, a dispatch sent from the Bay before the attack estimated
the population to be comprised of about 500 English and with an enslaved
population of three thousand, of whom “there may be 500 to be depended on”
(Ibid).
 |
| Maya World (Thompson 2004) |
Throughout the period of slavery in Belize, the Baymen were
always concerned about the loyalty of the enslaved. The enslaved consistently “demonstrated
their hatred of slavery and, by their actions frequently threatened the very
existence of the Bay settlement” (Bolland 2003, 29). As early as 1745, a letter described to the
colonial office speaks of the Baymen's inability to identify the amount of enslaved who “may
prove true in the time of engagement” (quoted in Iyo, 2000, 8).
Records exist of the enslaved population seeking asylum in the
Yucatan as early as 1768 when twenty three of them escaped from a logwood work
on New River (Bolland 2003, 26). They also sought freedom in the Petén area (Iyo,
Tzalam, and Humphreys 2007, 202). It is not surprising then that in the 1779
capture, it was observed that “that there were several negro in arms, who had
formerly run away from the inhabitants of the Bay” (quoted in Bolland 2003,
28).
Indeed, there is a need to create a listing of the large number of
dispatches at the archives which supports this thesis (See Public Meeting records
at the Belize Archives or Burdon’s Archives).
 |
| Forest Scene (Eric King/NICH) |
This hypothesis is reinforced by the fact that the amount of
woodcutters and enslaved population after the 1783 Treaty was exceedingly low (Bolland
2003, 31; Thompson 2004, 28).
Moreover, Restall analysis supports this, he informs us that
“Cay Kitchen [the Bay/Belize settlement] slaves continued to appear in the
city's baptism records to 1784, creating
the last spike in slave imports into the colony and one of the biggest spikes
in its history” (Restall 2009, 23).
Conclusion
After the 1783 Treaty of Versailles and 1786 Treaty of Paris, the
settlement became more established peeking with the evacuation of over 2,000
people, (including Shoremen, American loyalist, and enslaved Africans). The
Settlers were permitted to extract both logwood and mahogany, boundaries were
defined, and the first superintendent was assigned to the Bay. However, the
enslaved population continued to resist the inhumane practice of slavery.
It is important to highlight that the rationale for expanding the boundaries
of timber extraction in the 1786 Treaty was not heavily dependent on the Baymen
requests (as stated in a wide array of works). It was rather profoundly based on British diplomacy. The British were
not in a position to enter another war with the Spaniards for the Mosquito
Shore. The idea of expansion of territory in the Bay for the evacuation of the
Mosquito Coast was used as a scape goat for the British to “save face”. In
reality, the Mosquito Coast was the area of most interest to the British with
the end goal of controlling trade by linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, a
plan which was never exploited (for more information, please see reference to
Sorsby 1969).
This article has shown the complexity of the 1779 capture. The
1779 capture generally been cited simply as another attempt of Spanish
expulsion of the Baymen allows us to better understand the position of the Bay
in Algo-Spanish policy, and better understand the early development of the Bay
and enslavement. We are further challenged to reinterpret our view of slavery
in Belize not by the accounts of the oppressors but by the actions of the
enslaved themselves (Iyo 2000, 8-9).
The subsequent attack that occurred against the Baymen was in 1798. The Baymen were informed of the pending attack since March of 1796 (Encalada 2010, 4). The Baymen remained largely divided as whether to to defend or evacuate the settlement in the June 1st 1797 Public Meeting (Ibid). This was certainly influenced by the fact that some of the Baymen were captives in the 1779 attack (Ibid). Interestingly, one year after the vote to defend the settlement, there were about 53 Baymen who were still requesting assistance to evacuate in August of 1798 (Humphrey 2010, 16). (This perhaps helps us to understand why the 98 Battle did not develop as a grandeur celebration as it did until one hundred years after).
It is an interesting coincidence that 19 years after the 1779 capture of St. George’s Cay, it were the Spaniards who would surrender on a September 15th at the Battle of St. George's Cay. (See my post on the development of St. George’s Cay Day Celebrations).
The subsequent attack that occurred against the Baymen was in 1798. The Baymen were informed of the pending attack since March of 1796 (Encalada 2010, 4). The Baymen remained largely divided as whether to to defend or evacuate the settlement in the June 1st 1797 Public Meeting (Ibid). This was certainly influenced by the fact that some of the Baymen were captives in the 1779 attack (Ibid). Interestingly, one year after the vote to defend the settlement, there were about 53 Baymen who were still requesting assistance to evacuate in August of 1798 (Humphrey 2010, 16). (This perhaps helps us to understand why the 98 Battle did not develop as a grandeur celebration as it did until one hundred years after).
It is an interesting coincidence that 19 years after the 1779 capture of St. George’s Cay, it were the Spaniards who would surrender on a September 15th at the Battle of St. George's Cay. (See my post on the development of St. George’s Cay Day Celebrations).
References:
Asturias, Francisco. (1941). Belice.
Guatemala: Tipografia Nacional de Guatemala. Available at: http://archive.org/details/belice00astuguat
Bolland, Nigel. (2003). Colonialism and resistance in Belize: essays
in historical sociology. Mexico: Cubola. [First Ed. 1988]
Burdon, Sir John Alder (1931). Archives
of British Honduras, Vol.1. London: Sifton Praed and Co.
Encalada, Nigel and Awe, Jaime (Ed.). (2010). St. George's Caye, the Birthplace of a
Nation. Belize: ISCR/NICH
Humphreys, Howard. (2010).
"The Battle of St. George's Caye". In "St. George's Caye, the
Birthplace of a Nation", edited by Nigel Encalada and Jaime Awe. Belize:
ISCR/NICH
Lanz, Manuel A. (1905). Compendio
de historia de Campeche. Campeche: El Fenix. Available at: http://archive.org/details/compendiodehist00lanzgoog and http://cdigital.dgb.uanl.mx/la/1080013168/1080013168_14.pdf
Iyo, J. E. Aondofe. (2000). Towards understanding Belize’s multi-cultural history and identity.
Belize: Ministry of Education and the University of Belize
Iyo, Aondofe, Tzalam, Froyla, and Humphreys, Francis. (2007). Belize New Vision: African and Maya Civilizations, heritage of a new nation. Belize: Factory Books
Thomson, P. A. B. (2004).
Belize: a concise history. Malaysia:
MacMillan Caribbean
Restall, Matthew. (2009).
The Black Middle: Africans, Mayas, and Spaniards in Colonial Yucatan.
California: Standford University. Excerpt available at: http://books.google.com.bz/books?id=ygzb9M7cL5wC&lpg=PA23&dq=%22st.+george%27s+cay%22+1779&pg=PA23&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22st.%20george's%20cay%22%201779&f=false
Sorsby, William S. (1969). The
British Superintendency Of The Mosquito Shore 1749 - 1787. University
College, London. Unpublished Thesis. Available at: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1317875/1/295143.pdf
Shoman, Assad (2000). Thirteen
chapters of a history of Belize. Belize City: The Angelus Press Limited.
[First Ed. 1994]
No comments:
Post a Comment