• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Nanwe's Maps and Graphics Thread

And it's finished. Can't believe it has taken so much effort and time but here it is. Next up, the 1920 Senate election. I'm thinking of doing a basemap for the 1925-1935 elections (as the borders of the country and the districts changed but not sure yet).

KdZyU99.png
 
Very nice. I can see why the Slovak boundaries were so hard to find, it makes sense that they wouldn’t want to commemorate that map…

How did it go with the Cuban seats for the Restoration map, BTW?
 
Very nice. I can see why the Slovak boundaries were so hard to find, it makes sense that they wouldn’t want to commemorate that map…

How did it go with the Cuban seats for the Restoration map, BTW?
I actually never found the boundaries, rather I found a 1919-1920 municipal map, still reflecting the inherited districts from Hungary before reorganisation. Which was perfect because that’s how they’re shown in the 1920 election monographic I had but totally different from what the 1920 electoral law indicated (as it operated on the assumption of the upcoming entry into force of administrative reform bills).

On Cuba? I think I won’t be able to deliver with the quality I wanted. I can’t find any detailed maps of the Cuban provinces or municipalities prior to the 1976 reform that really changed the map.I will dig in the BNE website but I have low hopes. So the Cuban portion of the map may just be more indicative than accurate.
 
On Cuba? I think I won’t be able to deliver with the quality I wanted. I can’t find any detailed maps of the Cuban provinces or municipalities prior to the 1976 reform that really changed the map.I will dig in the BNE website but I have low hopes. So the Cuban portion of the map may just be more indicative than accurate.
Ah, that’s a shame but probably not unexpected.
 
Did Transcarpathia ever get a chance to elect its own deputies during the term, or were they left unrepresented until 1925?
 
The American obsession with mapping race has proven invaluable. The American 1899 census of occupied Cuba has some lovely maps of the share of white and black Cubans showing the municipal borders. I think that means Restoration Spain's Cuba map can be finished to the level of detail I wanted.
More charitably it's also the late-19th century American obsession with data visualisation, on which they seem to have been leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else. Though that choice of topic is very American as well, of course.
 
Spanish General Election, 1893
And so with that ...

The return of Antonio Cánovas del Castillo to the premiership following the 1891 election was to prove both short-lived and extremely problematic to the Conservatives.

Succeeding nearly five years of Liberal government, where Práxedes Mateo-Sagasta’s cabinet had accomplished most of the long-standing goals of mid-century Spanish progressive liberalism, from the adoption of universal (male) suffrage and juries to the definite abolition of slavery in Cuba, the brief Cánovas del Castillo cabinet should be noted for what it did not do – reverse these laws.

In Her speech opening the newly-elected Parliament in 1891, the Queen Regent set out Her Government’s priorities, primarily in social legislation. But perhaps the single most significant accomplishment of the short-lived Conservative cabinet was the introduction of the high protectionist tariffs that would turn Spain into one of the most closed-off economies in Europe.

The Conservatives’ stint in power was brief, marked by the struggle for control of the party’s ‘soul’ between the followers of Francisco Romero Robledo and those of Francisco Silvela.

Romero Robledo represented a more philosophically pragmatic conservatism, but also one far more willing – and indeed apt – at electoral manipulation and clientelism. Silvela, instead, represented a more Catholic, philosophically doctrinaire conservatism, but also a more reformist one, unwilling to accept the clientelist nature of the political system and whose key policy plank was a thorough reform of local government to put an end to the abuses of the main conduits of electoral manipulation - the mayor, the local judge and the governor.

When Cánovas formed his new cabinet after the 1891 election, Romero Robledo was appointed Overseas Minister. His entry into government and his clashes with Silvela led to the latter’s resignation in November 1891 from his post as Interior Minister.

A year later, in December 1892, a corruption scandal involving the Conservative Mayor of Madrid, Alberto Bosch y Fustegueras, and several city councillors belonging to Robledos’ faction exploded. On top of this, Bosch y Fustegueras' poor administration of the city had led to a colourful incident, the 'revuelta de las verduleras' (revolt of the (female) greengrocers).

As people close to Romero Robledo were involved, the government sought the support of Parliament to showcase the cabinet’s reputable behaviour in dealing with the affair. In the midst of the debate, Cánovas’ demands that Silvela do its duty “to support the boss” led to the latter’s faction voting against the government.

As a result, the Conservatives lost the vote. Cánovas interpreted the result as a loss of confidence, and so did the Queen Regent. She then proceeded to call Sagasta to form a new Government.

After taking power, Sagasta’s new Liberal government proceeded to pass two key decrees, one reforming the suffrage and electoral map in Puerto Rico to try (unsuccessfully) to prevent the Autonomist Party from abstaining in the election (27 December 1892) and another one dissolving the Congress and the elected part of the Senate to convoke an election (5 January 1893).

As was the usual procedure, Sagasta’s trusted Interior Minister, Venancio González Fernández ensured that the government obtained a parliamentary majority through the usual methods: appointment of Liberals as provincial governors, dismissal of opposition mayors, vote-buying and manipulation of vote bulletins and tallies, etc.

ZvKK3VW.png
 
And so with that ...

The return of Antonio Cánovas del Castillo to the premiership following the 1891 election was to prove both short-lived and extremely problematic to the Conservatives.

Succeeding nearly five years of Liberal government, where Práxedes Mateo-Sagasta’s cabinet had accomplished most of the long-standing goals of mid-century Spanish progressive liberalism, from the adoption of universal (male) suffrage and juries to the definite abolition of slavery in Cuba, the brief Cánovas del Castillo cabinet should be noted for what it did not do – reverse these laws.

In Her speech opening the newly-elected Parliament in 1891, the Queen Regent set out Her Government’s priorities, primarily in social legislation. But perhaps the single most significant accomplishment of the short-lived Conservative cabinet was the introduction of the high protectionist tariffs that would turn Spain into one of the most closed-off economies in Europe.

The Conservatives’ stint in power was brief, marked by the struggle for control of the party’s ‘soul’ between the followers of Francisco Romero Robledo and those of Francisco Silvela.

Romero Robledo represented a more philosophically pragmatic conservatism, but also one far more willing – and indeed apt – at electoral manipulation and clientelism. Silvela, instead, represented a more Catholic, philosophically doctrinaire conservatism, but also a more reformist one, unwilling to accept the clientelist nature of the political system and whose key policy plank was a thorough reform of local government to put an end to the abuses of the main conduits of electoral manipulation - the mayor, the local judge and the governor.

When Cánovas formed his new cabinet after the 1891 election, Romero Robledo was appointed Overseas Minister. His entry into government and his clashes with Silvela led to the latter’s resignation in November 1891 from his post as Interior Minister.

A year later, in December 1892, a corruption scandal involving the Conservative Mayor of Madrid, Alberto Bosch y Fustegueras, and several city councillors belonging to Robledos’ faction exploded. On top of this, Bosch y Fustegueras' poor administration of the city had led to a colourful incident, the 'revuelta de las verduleras' (revolt of the (female) greengrocers).

As people close to Romero Robledo were involved, the government sought the support of Parliament to showcase the cabinet’s reputable behaviour in dealing with the affair. In the midst of the debate, Cánovas’ demands that Silvela do its duty “to support the boss” led to the latter’s faction voting against the government.

As a result, the Conservatives lost the vote. Cánovas interpreted the result as a loss of confidence, and so did the Queen Regent. She then proceeded to call Sagasta to form a new Government.

After taking power, Sagasta’s new Liberal government proceeded to pass two key decrees, one reforming the suffrage and electoral map in Puerto Rico to try (unsuccessfully) to prevent the Autonomist Party from abstaining in the election (27 December 1892) and another one dissolving the Congress and the elected part of the Senate to convoke an election (5 January 1893).

As was the usual procedure, Sagasta’s trusted Interior Minister, Venancio González Fernández ensured that the government obtained a parliamentary majority through the usual methods: appointment of Liberals as provincial governors, dismissal of opposition mayors, vote-buying and manipulation of vote bulletins and tallies, etc.

ZvKK3VW.png
Fantastic work. What was the electoral system used in the multi-member seats, incidentally?
 
Fantastic work. What was the electoral system used in the multi-member seats, incidentally?

According to wikipedia, Multiple non-transferable vote with limited voting to ensure the representation of minorities.

So under the 1890 law, in those districts with fewer than 4 MPs, voters could as many MPs there were minus one (so 2/3 essentially);
in those with 4-7 MPs, voters could vote for up to as many MPs represented the constituency minus 2 (2/4, 3/5, 4/6, 5/7)
in those with over 8 MPs (only Madrid), voters could vote for up to as many MPs represented the constituency minus 3 (5/8).
 
According to wikipedia, Multiple non-transferable vote with limited voting to ensure the representation of minorities.

So under the 1890 law, in those districts with fewer than 4 MPs, voters could as many MPs there were minus one (so 2/3 essentially);
in those with 4-7 MPs, voters could vote for up to as many MPs represented the constituency minus 2 (2/4, 3/5, 4/6, 5/7)
in those with over 8 MPs (only Madrid), voters could vote for up to as many MPs represented the constituency minus 3 (5/8).
Interesting, thanks. They used that in some constituencies in the 1867-1885 voting system in the UK, I don't know if that's a coincidence or not as I know Spain in this era did model some aspects of its politics on the UK.
 
Interesting, thanks. They used that in some constituencies in the 1867-1885 voting system in the UK, I don't know if that's a coincidence or not as I know Spain in this era did model some aspects of its politics on the UK.

Yeah, the 1876 Constitution was heavily inspired by the British one. However, the electoral system was also used before 1868 if I'm not mistaken. In 1868-69 it was also used but where there were no single-member seats, rather whole provinces (or combinations of entire judicial districts) acted as districts. In the 1870-1874 period, all seats (including urban ones) were elected by FPTP.

In fact the 1878 electoral law essentially did two things, (1) merge a bunch of urban seats into constituencies and (2) re-introduce censitary suffrage.

The main element of 1876 was that it represented a British-inspired compromise between the traditional positions of conservatives (that sovereignty resided in the Sovereign, who granted a Constitutional Charter) and of progressives (that sovereignty belonged to the People, expressed in Parliament), by establishing co-sovereignty between King and Parliament, with a government answerable to both.

Also, the Senate, which (I'm working on a map) consisted of 3 categories of Senators:

(1) 180 elected senators, of which 147 were elected by provincial and local councillors and each province's wealthiest men in each province (3 senators, or 2 for the 16 smallest provinces), 11 elected in each of the country's university districts by university professors, deans, PhD students and high school principals, 10 elected from each ecclesiastical province by the Archbishops, bishops and cathedral chapters, 6 elected from each of the Royal Academies (Spanish Language, History, Fine Art, Exact Sciences, Moral and Political Sciences and Medicine) and 6 elected from 6 districts formed by various Economic Societies of Friends of the Country.

(2) A certain number of lifetime-appointed members by the King provided they met a number of conditions, including wealth qualification; and

(3) A certain number of Senators by right, including the King's (male) adult children, Grandees of Spain (that were only Spanish citizens and meeting wealth qualification), Captain-Generals of the Army, Admirals of the Navy, Archbishops and the Patriarch of the (West) Indies; and the Presidents of the Council of State, Supreme Court, Accounts Court, and of the Supreme Councils of War and the Navy (provided they had served in that role for over 2 years).

Categories 2 and 3 could never, put together, surpass in number the 180 elected Senators.

In 1893, there were 180 elected members, 90 life-time appointed senators and 14 senators by-right (mostly Grandees of Spain). Senators under category 3 had to request to be members of the Senate, it was not automatic. As such of the potential 11 archbishops, only one was a member in 1893.
 
Yeah, the 1876 Constitution was heavily inspired by the British one. However, the electoral system was also used before 1868 if I'm not mistaken. In 1868-69 it was also used but where there were no single-member seats, rather whole provinces (or combinations of entire judicial districts) acted as districts. In the 1870-1874 period, all seats (including urban ones) were elected by FPTP.

In fact the 1878 electoral law essentially did two things, (1) merge a bunch of urban seats into constituencies and (2) re-introduce censitary suffrage.

The main element of 1876 was that it represented a British-inspired compromise between the traditional positions of conservatives (that sovereignty resided in the Sovereign, who granted a Constitutional Charter) and of progressives (that sovereignty belonged to the People, expressed in Parliament), by establishing co-sovereignty between King and Parliament, with a government answerable to both.

Also, the Senate, which (I'm working on a map) consisted of 3 categories of Senators:

(1) 180 elected senators, of which 147 were elected by provincial and local councillors and each province's wealthiest men in each province (3 senators, or 2 for the 16 smallest provinces), 11 elected in each of the country's university districts by university professors, deans, PhD students and high school principals, 10 elected from each ecclesiastical province by the Archbishops, bishops and cathedral chapters, 6 elected from each of the Royal Academies (Spanish Language, History, Fine Art, Exact Sciences, Moral and Political Sciences and Medicine) and 6 elected from 6 districts formed by various Economic Societies of Friends of the Country.

(2) A certain number of lifetime-appointed members by the King provided they met a number of conditions, including wealth qualification; and

(3) A certain number of Senators by right, including the King's (male) adult children, Grandees of Spain (that were only Spanish citizens and meeting wealth qualification), Captain-Generals of the Army, Admirals of the Navy, Archbishops and the Patriarch of the (West) Indies; and the Presidents of the Council of State, Supreme Court, Accounts Court, and of the Supreme Councils of War and the Navy (provided they had served in that role for over 2 years).

Categories 2 and 3 could never, put together, surpass in number the 180 elected Senators.

In 1893, there were 180 elected members, 90 life-time appointed senators and 14 senators by-right (mostly Grandees of Spain). Senators under category 3 had to request to be members of the Senate, it was not automatic. As such of the potential 11 archbishops, only one was a member in 1893.
Fascinating, thanks. It is striking that given all the vagaries of the Turno Pacifico at the time, that arrangement for an upper house seems quite reasonable on paper and could be proposed today (other than the suffrage requirements for the 147).
 
Fascinating, thanks. It is striking that given all the vagaries of the Turno Pacifico at the time, that arrangement for an upper house seems quite reasonable on paper and could be proposed today (other than the suffrage requirements for the 147).

Yeah, the 1876 Constitution's Senate represented a compromise between the Senate of the progressive 1869 Constitution, where each province elected 4 senators chosen by delegates from each municipality who were themselves directly-elected by citizens by universal (male) suffrage although with similar candidacy requirements to 1876's text, and the conservative 1845 Constitution, where the King appointed all senators, and his children were automatically members.

Frankly, the 1876 Constitution by itself was not a crazy text, definitely less progressive than 1869's, but flexible enough to go a long way (except Article 11 on the role of the Catholic Church), the problem was on everyday politics, which made a mockery of electoral politics although, imho, not to the extent it sometimes appears.

Plus the fact that governments had the habit of suspending sessions whenever it wasn't constitutionally mandated that Parliament be open (so 3 months a year and to pass the budget) and then govern by decree.

There are two descriptions of the political system that I quite like. One Italian commentator said (in the 1910s) that the Spanish 1876 Constitution was a much more democratic text than the Italian Statuto Albertino but everyday politics were far less democratic (caciquismo, turnismo, the King's strong role), whereas one British ambassador once compared Spanish politics in the 1890s to pre-Great Reform Act British politics.
 
Back
Top