Juan Manuel de Rosas - Criticism and Historical Perspective

Criticism and Historical Perspective

The figure of Juan Manuel de Rosas and his government generated strong conflicting viewpoints, both in his own time and afterwards.

In the context of the Argentine Civil War, Rosas was the main leader of the Federalist party, and as such the most part of the controversies around him were motivated by the preexistent antagonism of Federalism with the Unitarian Party. During the government of Rosas most unitarians fled to neighbour countries, mostly to Chile, Uruguay and Brazil; among them we can find Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, who wrote Facundo while living in Chile. Facundo is a critic biography of Facundo Quiroga, another federalist caudillo, but Sarmiento used it to pass many indirect or direct critics to Rosas himself. Some members of the 1837 generation, such as Esteban Echeverría or Juan Bautista Alberdi, tried to generate an alternative to the unitarians-federalists antagonism, but had to flee to other countries as well.

After the defeat of Rosas in Caseros and the return of his political adversaries, it was decided to portray him in a negative light. The legislature of Buenos Aires charged him with High treason in 1857; Nicanor Arbarellos supported his negative vote with the following speech:

The first historians of Argentina, such as Bartolomé Mitre, were vocal critics of Rosas, and for many years there was a clear consensus in condemning him. However, authors like Mitre or Sarmiento can't be considered exclusively from the perspectives of historiography or the history of ideas, as they were active people and even protagonists of the political struggles of their time; and their works were used as tools to advertise their political ideas. Adolfo Saldías was the first in not condemning Rosas entirely, and in the book Historia de la Confederación Argentina he supported his international policy, while keeping the usual rejection on the treatment given by Rosas to detractors. Authors like Levene, Molinari or Ravignani, in the 1930 decade, would develop a neutral approach to Rosas, that Ravignani defined as "Nor with Rosas, nor against Rosas". Their work would be more oriented towards the positive things of the early years of Rosas, and less into the most polemic ones.

Years later, a new historiographical flow made an active and strong support of Rosas and other caudillos. Because of its great differences with the early historians the local historiography knows them as revisionists, while the early one is named "official" or "academic" instead. However, despite namings, the early historiography of Argentina hasn't always followed standard academic procedures, nor developed hegemonic views at all topics. They would expand the work of Saldías and Ernesto Quesada, and developed instead negative views about Mitre, Sarmiento, Rivadavia and the unitarians.

Modern historians like Felipe Pigna or Félix Luna avoid joining the dispute, describing instead the existence of conflicting viewpoints towards Rosas. The historiographical dispute about Rosas is currently considered to be over.