This work advances the revisionary thesis that the Franciata was not only an era of intense nationalism but also one of popular revolution. This contention is sustained by the author in reference to four great changes in the young nation—an end of oligarchical domination of society and economy, avoidance of a dependent economy, egalitarian land reform, and rational state direction of the economy. However, in reaction to the old “liberal” condemnation of Dr. Francia’s Paraguay, the author has fallen prey to an overly laudatory view of Paraguay’s first dictator, a questionable advocacy of popular revolution in this period, and a distorted presentation of late colonial Paraguayan society. Confidence in the author’s views is also lessened by factual errors in the discussion of the political construction of the new state and general Church-state relations; these errors are due primarily to reliance upon dubious sources for these topics.

Nevertheless, a strong case is made for the creation of Paraguayan nationalism. The new nation was no longer dependent economically upon Buenos Aires or the outside world, and the power of the non-Paraguayan Asunción commercial elite was totally eradicated. A new national structure for the republic was erected. And the dictator preserved his nation’s political autonomy through isolation and noninvolvement in the current Platine power struggle. The case for a “popular” Paraguay is weaker.

Peonage, slavery, and the inferior status of the Indians still existed. More important was the putative land reform since the great bulk of Paraguayans resided in the campo and engaged in agricultural and pastoral pursuits. Contrary to the author’s assertion that the latifundia dominated the countryside prior to independence, the land system then was a complex mixture of medium-sized chacras, arrendamientos leased from the Church, state, or villages, common lands, and estancias del Rey, all scattered among some large estates. Confiscated Church lands which earlier had been leased to arrendatarios became state arrendamientos (not “homesteads” as stated by the author) and original lessees continued with little change. Evidence presented to suggest massive transfer of land from important rural families to the state is not convincing. While the old rural elite lost political power, it survived the Franciata. Land reform or massive redistribution of land, an important hypothesis for popular revolution, is simply not proven.

These objections aside, the chapters on the evolution of the national economy, Francia’s economic thought, and the “escape valve” of trade with Brazil are excellent and of great worth. The economic data, tables, and appendixes will be extremely useful for any economic historian of this era. For those chapters on the national economy the author should be commended for his diligent research in the little used Nueva Encuadernación of the Archivo Nacional de Asunción.

Dr. White’s work raises some important questions such as the persistence of the Paraguayan rural elite, the land systems of Paraguay, and life and labor of the rural masses before and after independence. Until these questions are answered, few definite statements about the impact of the Franciata on Paraguayan society can really be made— let alone the aspect of a “popular revolution.” Autonomy, economic nationalism, and a new form of government are well discussed, but care must be exercised in the use of this work for the social or popular aspect of the early nationhood of Paraguay.