Notes on the History of Argentine IndependenceWhittemore, Charles W.
History
Notes on the History of Argentine Independence
Whittemore, Charles W.
Argentina -- History -- To 1810
There was a general agreement among the Argentine statesmen of the
period that a constitutional monarchy was the form of Government best
suited to the needs of the country. Great Britain was the model to be
copied, self-governing Britain which had emerged stronger than ever
from the tempest of revolution in Europe that followed the upheaval
in France. Loyalty to an Argentine Crown would unify the divergent
elements and end the civil strife which had commenced within a year
after the May revolution and whose end no one could foresee. In 1814,
Rivadavia, as Argentine Commissioner to Europe, saw Ferdinand VII
and as a solution of the trouble between Spain and the Argentine
intimated that a son of this monarch might be called to Buenos Aires
and made King. Soon after Belgrano's return from England in 1816, he
wrote Rivadavia who was still in Europe. "The public is generally
favorable to a constitutional monarchy, although opinions are divided
between Incas and Bourbons". Belgrano had worked out a plan under
which a descendant of the Peruvian Inca was to be crowned King of
the River Plate to rule under the guidance of a Council of Regency
and the seat of government was to be the ancient city of Cuzco. This
was to be a real American Kingdom. Rivadavia favored the selection
of a European Prince with Buenos Aires as seat of Government, in
order to stimulate contact with the outside world. Both plans had
partizans and both were discussed at the Tucumán Congress, but when
put to a vote, the Belgrano project was formally approved. Today the
plan seems so fantastic that it appears incredible it ever received
serious consideration. The great majority of the delegates wanted a
monarchy; "Where there is no subordination, there is no government",
wrote Rivadavia, and the details were secondary. San Martín approved
of the Inca project, as he would have approved of anything that
promised internal quiet, but on condition that the Regency be limited
in number:
"If the Regency is composed of more than one person", he wrote,
"everything is paralysed and the Devil takes us. In effect, we only
have to change the title of our Director, and we have a Regent".
Pueyrredón had been elected Supreme Director on May 3rd. 1816, and
had undefined but practically dictatorial powers. Three years later
(in 1819) another Congress sitting in Buenos Aires approved in
secret session a project to bring a King from England and looked to
France for support. The leaders had a profound lack of confidence
in the popular capacity for self-government, yet in spite of this,
the public feeling was inarticulately and incoherently inclined to a
Republic, and due to this unspoken pressure, in the end nothing came
of the monarchical plans.
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