Juan Manuel de Rosas - Criticism and Historical Perspective

Criticism and Historical Perspective

See also: Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas

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:

Rosas, Sir, that tyrant, that barbarian, even if barbarian and cruel, was not considered as such by the European and civilized nations, and that judgment of the European and civilized nations, moved to posterity, will hold in doubt, at least, that barbarian and execrable tyranny that Rosas exercised among us. It's needed, then, to mark with a legislative sanction declaring him guilty of lèse majesté so at least this point is marked in history, and it is seen that the most potent court, which is the popular court, which is the voice of the sovereign peoples by us represented, throws to the monster the anathema calling him traitor and guilty of lèse majesté. Judgments like those must not be left for history.


What will be said, what might be said in history when it's seen that the civilized nations of the world, for whom we are but just a point, have acknowledged in this tyrant a being worthy to deal with them? That England has returned his cannons taken in war action, and saluted his bloody and innoent-blood stained flag with a 21-gun salute? This fact, known by history, would be a great counterweight, sir, if we leave Rosas without this sanction. The France itself, which started the crusade that was shared by general Lavalle, in its due time also abandoned him, dealed with Rosas and saluted his flag with a 21-gun salute. I ask, sir, if this fact won't erase from history everything we may say, if we leave this monster that decimated us for so many years without a sanction.
The judgment of Rosas must not be left to history, as some people desire. It's clear that it can't be left to history the judgment of the tyrant Rosas. Let's throw to Rosas this anathema, which perhaps can be the only one to harm him in history, because otherwise his tyranny will always be doubtful, as well as his crimes! What will be said in history, sir? And this is sad to tell, what will be said in history when it is said that the brave Admiral Brown, the hero of the Navy of the Independence war, was the admiral who defended the tyranny of Rosas? What will be said in history without this anathema, when it is said that this man who contributed with his glories and talents to give shine to the Sun of May, that the other deputee referenced in his speech, when it is said that General San Martín, the conqueror of the Andes, the father of the Argentine glories, made him the greatest tribute that can be given to a soldier by handing him his sword? Will this be believed, sir, if we don't throw an anathema to the tyrant Rosas? Will this man be known as he is in 20 or 50 years, if we want to go further, when it is known that Brown and San Martín were loyal to him and gave him the most respectful tributes, along with France and England?
No, sir: they will say, the savage unitarians, his enemies, lied. He has not been a tyrant: far from that, he has been a great man, a great general. It's needed to throw without doubts this anathema to the monster. If at least we had imititated the English people, who dragged the corpse of Cromwell across the streets of London, and had dragged Rosas across the streets of Buenos Aires! I support, Mr. President, the project. If the judgment of Rosas was left to the judgment of history, we won't get Rosas to be condemned as a tyrant, but perhaps he may be in it the greatest and most glorious of Argentines.

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.

Read more about this topic:  Juan Manuel De Rosas

Famous quotes containing the words criticism, historical and/or perspective:

    When you overpay small people you frighten them. They know that their merits or activities entitle them to no such sums as they are receiving. As a result their boss soars out of economic into magic significance. He becomes a source of blessings rather than wages. Criticism is sacrilege, doubt is heresy.
    Ben Hecht (1893–1964)

    Quite apart from any conscious program, the great cultural historians have always been historical morphologists: seekers after the forms of life, thought, custom, knowledge, art.
    Johan Huizinga (1872–1945)

    I know that you, ladies and gentlemen, have a philosophy, each and all of you, and that the most interesting and important thing about you is the way in which it determines the perspective in your several worlds.
    William James (1842–1910)