Latin America: Its Rise and ProgressGarcía Calderón, Francisco
History
Latin America: Its Rise and Progress
García Calderón, Francisco
Latin America
The American _élite_ were monarchists. In liberating a continent
their generals and statesmen professed to endow the new nations with
the stability of a monarchy. Iturbide was Emperor of Mexico. The
lieutenants of Bolivar offered the latter a crown; Paez persistently
held the imperial ambition before him. Belgrano, in 1816, at the
Congress of Tucuman, stated that the best form of government for the
Argentine was "a tempered monarchy"; and many deputies in that
Assembly demanded the restoration of the throne of the Incas and of
its traditional seat at Cuzco: in short, the creation of an American
dynasty.
Bolivar wished to see Colombia and Spanish America constitutional
monarchies with foreign princes. Ministers were to exercise a policy
"of vigilance or defence, of mediation or influence, of protection or
tutelage" on the part of the great European states in respect of the
Colombian nation. Other partisans of the monarchy were Flores,
Sucre, Monteagudo, Garcia del Rio, Riva-Agüero, and the Argentine
director Posadas, who wished to establish that form of government "on
solid and permanent foundations" in the provinces of La Plata; Dean
Funes, the Colombians Nariño, Mosquera, Briceno Mendez, and others.
The founders of South American independence understood that only a
strong government could save the new nations from demagogy, anarchy,
warfare between military chiefs, and untimely provincial ambitions.
They wanted autonomy without licence, monarchy without despotism, and
political solidity without Spanish suzerainty.
Despite this conviction on the part of the revolutionaries, South
America saw the birth of the Republic. Alberdi wrote that its origin
was involuntary, and that it was the result of European {62}
indifference and Yankee egoism; more than involuntary, it was
spontaneous. The demagogues and the crowd accepted it as the
negation of monarchy. The latter symbolised the Gothic despotism,
the old humiliating domination, the persistence of castes and
municipal privilege. In the popular mind, naturally of a simplifying
tendency, monarchy was slavery; anarchy and the republic were
liberty; there was no distinction between the King of Spain and other
princes, between the absolutism of Ferdinand VII. and the
constitutional monarchy of England. A universal hatred condemned all
kings. The republic was not so much an organisation or a political
system as a negation, and indissolubly bound up with it were the
cardinal ideas of country, equality, and liberty.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account