The
historiography of
Juan Manuel de Rosas
is highly controversial. Most Argentine historians take an approach either for or against him, a dispute that has influenced much of the entire
historiography of Argentina
.
[1]
Contemporary descriptions
[
edit
]
Rosas' government of Argentina, during the period of the
civil wars
, attracted wide criticism. Most leaders of the
Unitarian Party
exiled themselves to other countries during Rosas' rule.
Domingo Faustino Sarmiento
, living in Chile, wrote
Facundo
, a biography of
Facundo Quiroga
whose real intention was to attack Rosas.
[2]
Most Unitarians established themselves in
Montevideo
. In their writings they criticized Rosas, calling him a ruthless dictator and accusing him of many crimes. These statements were not intended for merely local effect but were designed to promote a European intervention in the conflict.
Jose Rivera Indarte
wrote a work called
Blood Tables
(Tablas de Sangre) which was published in Europe. It was intended to be a complete list of the known victims of Rosas. It attributed more than 22,000 deaths to his government. The Argentine politician
Manuel Moreno
considered this work to be libel. The reports from Montevideo were echoed in France, as many French citizens resided in Montevideo at that time.
Alexandre Dumas
wrote the novel
Montevideo, or the New Troy
based on the reports of
Melchor Pacheco
.
Adolphe Thiers
urged
Francois Guizot
to intervene in the conflict. On its own initiative France imposed a
blockade of the Rio de la Plata
between 1838 and 1840, which was followed in 1845 by a
joint blockade with Great Britain
.
[3]
The intervention by the European powers won sympathy for Rosas from other South Americans, who saw him as a fellow American standing against powerful foreign aggressors.
[4]
He was supported by
Francisco Antonio Pinto
,
Jose Ballivian
, and many international newspapers. Some of those newspapers were the American
New York Sun
(5 August 1845) and
New York Herald
(7 September 1845), the Brazilians
O Brado de Amazonas
(9 August 1845) and
O Sentinella da Monarchia
(20 August 1845) and the Chilean
El Tiempo
(15 August 1845).
[5]
The
liberator
Jose de San Martin
, who was living in France, corresponded with Rosas, offering his full support, both against the Europeans and the Unitarians. San Martin showed his respect by bequeathing his sword to Rosas.
[6]
Later descriptions
[
edit
]
Rosas was deposed by
Justo Jose de Urquiza
in 1852, in the
battle of Caseros
, and Buenos Aires seceded from the
Argentine Confederation
later in the year. Rosas moved into exile in Southampton. The Unitarians confiscated all his properties and repudiated him in a variety of ways.
Jose Marmol
wrote the novel
Amalia
, the first Argentine novel, and included several criticisms to Rosas, such as "
not even the dust of your bones the America will have
".
[4]
However, such authors cannot be considered exclusively from the perspectives of historiography or the history of ideas, as they were politically active people, even with main roles in the political struggles of their time; and their works were used as tools to advertise their ideas.
[7]
Most documents of the time were burned during the aftermath of Caseros.
[8]
The legislature of Buenos Aires charged him with
High treason
in 1857;
Nicanor Arbarellos
supported his 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
lese majeste
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
lese majeste
. 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 innocent-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, dealt 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 deputy referenced in his speech, when it is said that General San Martin, 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 Martin 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.
[9]
[A]
A notable exception to this trend was
Juan Bautista Alberdi
, who was among the Unitarian expatriates in Montevideo and attacked Rosas during his rule. He met with him during the latter's exile in England in 1857, an event which changed his mind into supporting him and even led to their becoming friends. Alberdi would condemn the aforementioned sanction against Rosas, lauded that he never plotted to regain power, compared the barbarism attributed to him with the contemporary United States, Russia, Italy and Germany, and pointed that Urquiza deposed Rosas to organize the country but the actual result was the secession of Buenos Aires.
[10]
Domingo Faustino Sarmiento
changed his view of Rosas during his late life as well.
[11]
Bartolome Mitre
maintained his hatred towards him all his life, which may be explained by family reasons: Mitre's father was appointed as treasurer of Uruguay by
Fructuoso Rivera
and fired by
Manuel Oribe
; and Rosas supported Oribe against Rivera during the
Uruguayan civil war
.
[12]
Bartolome Mitre
started the first noteworthy historiographic studies shortly afterwards, but opted to avoid the period of Rosas rule altogether. He wrote biographies for
Manuel Belgrano
and
Jose de San Martin
, which actually detailed the Spanish rule in the Americas, the
Argentine War of Independence
and the
War with Brazil
, but made no mention afterwards. His biography of San Martin ended at the point when San Martin ended his military career, and he declined to write his projected book "
The ostracism and apotheosis of General San Martin
", as he would have to write about San Martin's disputes with
Bernardino Rivadavia
, his repudiation of the execution of
Manuel Dorrego
and the rule of
Juan Lavalle
, his steady appreciative correspondence to Rosas and his rejection to the European interventions against him; all of which would hint that San Martin was closer to the Federalists than to the Unitarians.
[13]
Similarly, Mitre wrote a series of small biographies of men from the War of Independence; some of them worked with Rosas later but those details were carefully omitted.
[14]
[15]
Mitre established a version of history with an explicit bias against his enemies of the civil war;
[15]
this method constrated sharply with the
historiography of the United States
, which avoided the arbitrary divisions into heroes and villains and preferred a fair and dispassionate perspective.
[16]
The liberal historiography promoted by Mitre and Sarmiento was highly influenced by
Anglophilia
.
[17]
The first major attempt to study Rosas and the Confederation as a historical period was done by
Adolfo Saldias
. Being one generation after the contemporaries of Rosas, he attempted to make a scientific
[18]
and dispassionated account of his rule. His work was based on a high number of sources, from varied origins. He visited Rosas' daughter
Manuela Rosas
in Southampton to check the archive of state documents that Rosas took with himself to the exile: mails sent and received, draft copies of official announcements and diplomatic reports, confidential reports of his ministers in London, Paris, Washington and Rio de Janeiro, and confidential police reports. Saldias checked as well the documents published at the newspapers of the time, interviews with contemporaries and memoirs of military leaders. Saldias rejected the
civilization and barbarism
dichotomy introduced by Sarmiento, and described the ranchers of the countryside as a mere political faction with specific interests. He gave new significance to the
Federal Pact
, a perspective that would be shared by both future revisionists and authors as
Emilio Ravignani
and
Ricardo Levene
.
[19]
The Generation of '80
[
edit
]
The years between 1880 and 1930 saw a rise of
positivist
essayists.
[20]
They modified the approach in the study of history, but with little changes to general interpretations; for instance, the
Great Man theory
was gradually dismissed, favoring instead perspectives that explained history through social, mental, cultural or economic factors.
[21]
Jose Maria Ramos Mejia
tried to explain key biographies, specially Rosas', through a
phrenologist
analysis.
[22]
Vicente Fidel Lopez
and
Domingo Faustino Sarmiento
praised his original approach, but Lopez pointed out the lack of clinical records from the period being studied, and Sarmiento that Mejia trusted too much on
libelles
from that time (even by Sarmiento himself) which were more concerned with the political conflicts than with historical accuracy.
[23]
Another author from this period was
Ernesto Quesada
, who worked with Rosas and wrote "
La epoca de Rosas
" (Spanish:
The age of Rosas
) and the influential "
Rosas y su tiempo
" (
Spanish
:
Rosas and his time
).
[18]
Quesada applied the standards of the current German scholarship, as he had studied in that country.
[18]
He considered that the events of the civil war were best explained by characteristics of Argentine society rather than by Rosas' own personality, and compared the rise of Rosas after the
anarchy of the year XX
with the rule of the king
Louis XI of France
.
[24]
He did not consider Rosas a tyrant, at least not in comparison with the Unitarian rules, and attributed the failure of the early attempts of political organization to the lack of political education.
[25]
His book was well documented, and detailed how the image of Rosas was distorted after his exile, and many key documents concealed or destroyed.
[26]
However, he was critical of Saldias' work, and had disputes with him.
[27]
A common assumption of the time considered that Argentina began an age of prosperity after the defeats of Rosas and Urquiza at Caseros and Pavon. This perspective was weakened after the 1912
Grito de Alcorta
and the raise of
Hipolito Yrigoyen
to the presidency.
Juan Alvarez
, influenced by the new state of affairs, wrote a history of Argentina from an economic perspective, and redeemed the protectionist policy of Rosas as an attempt to restore the economy of the country that had been badly damaged by wars and free trade.
[28]
The new historical school
[
edit
]
The new historical school was a new generation of historians, influenced by the
University Revolution
, who sought to modernize the historiographical work with new methodologies. The New Historical School did not share common ideas about historical topics in themselves, but rather a common
modus operandi
.
[29]
They were not part of the social upper classes that ruled Argentina since 1852, but sons of immigrants who arrived to Argentina during the great immigrations waves at the turn of the century. As a result, they were less influenced by factionalism and preconceived ideas.
[30]
One of the authors of the New Historical School that worked with Rosas was
Emilio Ravignani
, his main interest being the origins of federalism and the national organization. He presided the "Institute of historical investigations", and joined the Junta of History and Numismatics by recommendation of
Ricardo Levene
. As subsecretary of international relations during the administration of
Hipolito Yrigoyen
he could check a lot of documents and bibliography, which allowed him to write a book about the first meeting of Rosas and the British diplomat
Henry Southern
.
[31]
In his study of the
Argentine Constitution of 1853
, he considered that the
Federal Pact
was a strong precedent which established Federal rule, later confirmed in 1853. Unlike the authors that dismissed the period as anarchic, Ravignani considered that the pacts and the role of the
caudillos
was instrumental to maintain national unity. Ravignani gave new significance to the
caudillos
, Rosas and Artigas, his work was influenced by Saldias and Quesada.
[32]
His work was discussed by
Ricardo Levene
, who thought that the civil war and the delegation of the
sum of public power
generated a dictatorship, and that Rosas was a special
caudillo
, unlike the others.
[33]
A notable historian of the 1920s was
Dardo Corvalan
. All his works reinvidicated
[
clarification needed
]
the actions of Rosas. He employed a less scholarly language than Saldias or Quesada, favoring instead a language closer to the average reader, although Saldias was almost exclusively the source of his work. He did not focus his criticism on other historians, but on writers of poetry or pamphlets against Rosas, such as Rivera Indarte. Though he was an
Yrigoyenist
, he did not portray Rosas as a popular or populist leader ? pointing instead to his support among the wealthy people.
[34]
Another important historian was
Carlos Ibarguren
, minister of
Roque Saenz Pena
and teacher of History of Argentina at the Faculty of Philosophy and Literature. He organized a number of conferences about Rosas, which were compiled and published in an influential book. High interest in Rosas existed for political reasons: politicians opposing Hipolito Yrigoyen (the president at the time) compared him with Rosas under a negative light, and his supporters took pride of the comparison by pointing similarities between Rosas and Yrigoyen. Ibarguren is neither critical nor supportive of Rosas, trying to provide explanations for his actions based on psychology.
[35]
Historical revisionism
[
edit
]
The 1930s saw the work of the first
revisionist historians
in Argentina.
[36]
The historiography of Argentina is usually simplified as having a liberal or "official" history, that would be hegemonic, scientific and endorsed by the formal institutions, and a "counter history" closer to the writing of essays than to historical work and influenced by political movements. However, the context is much more complicated than that, and the frontiers between both types of history are rather diffuse. Authors deemed as "liberal" did not always follow scientific procedures, nor had homogeneous perspectives in all topics. It was not always hegemonic either, and several revisionists hold public offices or were supported by the current governments.
[37]
Moreover, revisionist historians did not even have homogeneous points of view: Saldias is commonly considered the first revisionist, but his work praised
Bernardino Rivadavia
as well as Rosas, suggesting a continuity between both, whereas most revisionists would praise Rosas and reject Rivadavia.
[38]
The 1930s revisionists were divided into right-wing nationalists, who rejected the
black legend
and praised the Catholic Church and the Hispanic heritage, and popular nationalists, who rejected the exclusion of the masses from political life and praised Rosas's popular support.
[39]
The starting point of the historical revisionism in the 1930s is disputed, according to the perspective held over such revisionism. Authors who consider revisionism a phenomenon related to ongoing political movements point to the 1934 book
La Argentina y el imperialismo britanico
(Spanish:
Argentina and the British imperialism
), by the Irazusta brothers.
[40]
This work, highly critical of the recent
Roca?Runciman Treaty
, considered that Britain had been
imperialistic
towards Argentina since its beginnings.
[41]
Authors that focus instead on the historiographical merits of revisionism choose instead
Ensayo sobre el ano 20
(Spanish:
Essay about the Year 20
) and
Ensayo sobre Rosas y la suma del poder
(Spanish:
Essay about Rosas and the sum of power
), by
Julio Irazusta
, also from 1934.
[42]
The first essay analyzed the
anarchy of the year XX
, and the second the historiography of Rosas. Irazusta diverged with previous works supporting Rosas: unlike Saldias, he did not consider Rosas and Rivadavia as part of a same political project but part of divergent ones. Quesada did not thought Rosas to be a skilled politician, while Irazusta did think so. Neither Saldias nor Quesada considered the
battle of Caseros
a turning point in the history of Argentina, while Irazusta considered it a lost chance to become a global power.
[43]
There were many works about Rosas written at the end of the 1930 decade and beginning of the 1940s:
Vida de Juan Manuel de Rosas
(Spanish:
Life of Juan Manuel de Rosas
) by
Manuel Galvez
in 1940, the first volume of
Vida politica de Juan Manuel de Rosas a traves de su correspondencia
(Spanish:
Political life of Juan Manuel de Rosas though his correspondence
) by
Julio Irazusta
in 1941, and
Defensa y perdida de nuestra independencia economica
(Spanish:
Defense and loss of our economic independence
) by
Jose Maria Rosa
in 1942. The studies about Rosas were channeled through a new institute, the
Juan Manuel de Rosas national institute of historical investigations
, established in 1938. This institute and similar ones thought that public instruction was instrumental in generating a new nationalist sentiment in the population, but using new historical structures in place of the ones used in previous decades.
[44]
Along with the institute, there was Pro-Repatriation Rosas Committee, which promoted the
repatriation of Juan Manuel de Rosas's body
.
[36]
Popular interest in Rosas further increased with the start of the
Spanish Civil War
and World War II, which increased and radicalized the disputes between supporters of fascism and
anti-fascism
to its highest level in Latin America. Most historians tried to avoid the modern political controversies and stay focused on the time period under study;
Emilio Ravignani
warned in 1939 that the figure of Rosas should not be used to justify modern dictatorships. Still, those disputes influenced the way people perceived history. Academics as
Diego Luis Molinari
and
Jose Maria Rosa
were attacked by student unions that considered them Nazis because of their support to Rosas, and tried to prevent them from teaching at universities.
[45]
Many authors, on the other hand, opted instead to avoid Rosas altogether.
[46]
The Rosas National Institute quickly abandoned its historiographical purposes, and focused instead in merely promoting Rosas' image. It was considered that historical revisionism had already prevailed and that Rosas should be considered a
national hero
. Thus, the institute made little work in creating archives of the time period (although that was one of its initial purposes) and actual historical investigation, and worked instead with conferences, parades and literary comment.
[47]
Although they were accused of holding fascist ideas, they did not support
Francisco Franco
or other modern fascist governments, supporting instead
Argentine neutrality in World War II
.
[48]
Palacio thought that historiography should be a reflection of the values of the society that generates it, so the historiography of decades ago was correct for its own time period but outdated in the 1930s.
[49]
Manuel Galvez
compared the actions of Rosas with those of other world leaders under similar circumstances, such as
Louis XI of France
,
Diego Portales
, and considered him a leader of
Republicanism
in Argentina, unlike the
monarchist
Unitarians.
[50]
Irazusta considered instead that Rosas was a great historical figure, not only in Argentina or even in South America, but in world history as well.
[51]
Jose Maria Rosa
rejected the
Great Man theory
, and thought that history should not focus on specific isolated men or events but on the evolution of society as a whole.
[52]
Peronism
[
edit
]
The
Revolution of '43
benefited revisionist historians. National universities were intervened and revisionism got a prominent role in them. However, the radical role of
Jordan Bruno Genta
at the
National University of the Littoral
was highly criticized, both by antifascists and by other revisionists as
Arturo Jauretche
and the Irazusta brothers. Jauretche was imprisoned for his criticism, and the magazine run by the Irazusta was closed. Others as
Vicente Sierra
tried a more integrationist approach.
[53]
The historical revisionism lost the high hierarchical roles achieved in the Revolution of '43 when
Juan Peron
was elected president. Revisionists had divided opinions towards him: Manuel Galvez, Vicente Sierra, Ramon Doll and Ernesto Palacio gave their full support to Peronism; Juan Pablo Oliver and Federico Ibarguren supported him from other political parties; Jose Maria Rosa and Raul Scalabrini Ortiz supported him at a mere personal level, without getting involved in politics, but Genta and the Irazusta brothers became antiperonists.
[54]
The government of Peron avoided taking sides in the ideological disputes of the times, and did the same in historical topics, without endorsing nor rejecting revisionism.
[54]
[55]
Other than replacing the title "The Rosas dictatorship" for "Rosas and his era" in high school textbooks, Peronism did not endorse revisionism or Rosas in any way. The state only made official praise to universally accepted national heroes, such as
Jose de San Martin
, whose centennial was celebrated in 1950. After the
railway nationalization
no railway received the name of Rosas; being named instead
Urquiza
,
Mitre
and
Sarmiento
(all of them historical enemies of Rosas) and
Belgrano
and
San Martin
(universally accepted national heroes of Argentina).
[56]
On the other hand,
antiperonism
condemned revisionism and Rosas, extrapolating in him the criticism towards Peron. Most notably, they celebrated the
centennial of the battle of Caseros
in which Rosas was ousted from power.
[54]
Still, the antiperonist coup that deposed Peron saw no need to modify the history curriculum, which continued to be used in schools with no modifications.
[57]
The analogies between Peron and Rosas became explicit during the
Revolucion Libertadora
, a coup that ousted Peron from power and banned Peronism.
Eduardo Lonardi
,
de facto
president, used the quote "
ni vencedores ni vencidos
" (Spanish:
"neither victors nor vanquished"
), which was used by Urquiza after deposing Rosas in Caseros. The official perspective was that Peron was "the second tyranny", the first one being Rosas, and that both ones should be equally rejected, and conversely both governments that ousted them should be praised. This perspective was condensed into the line of historical continuity "
May
-
Caseros
-
Libertadora
". According to it, the purpose of the May Revolution was to build government institutions, and that purpose would only be achieved after Rosas' defeat.
[58]
This approach backfired. So far revisionism had success in academic contexts, but failed to change the popular perception of history. Peron was highly popular and the military coup unpopular; this made revisionism popular by embracing the comparison established between Rosas and Peron, but viewing him with a positive light instead. The strategy, however, was not immediate. Jose Maria Rosa was one of the most benefited revisionist historians in this context.
[59]
Modern times
[
edit
]
The
Repatriation of Juan Manuel de Rosas's body
, a project began in the 1930s, finally took place in 1989, at the beginning of the first presidency of
Carlos Menem
. His body, until that time kept at the
Southampton Old Cemetery
in the
United Kingdom
, was moved to
La Recoleta cemetery
. The procession, attended by both descendants of Rosas and descendants of his historical enemies, was a symbol of the national unification promoted by Menem, who called for an end to historical enmities.
[60]
According to the historian
Felix Luna
, the disputes between supporters and detractors of Rosas are outdated, and modern historiography has incorporated the several corrections made by historical revisionism.
[1]
Luna points that Rosas is no longer seen as a horrible monster, but as a common historical man as the others; and that it is anachronistic to judge him under modern moral standards.
[1]
Luis Alberto Romero
, leader historian of the CONICET, the University San Martin and the UBA, pointed that the ideas of revisionism have been smoothly included into high-school textbooks, with no visible contradictions with other perspectives.
[61]
Horacio Gonzalez
, head of the
National Library of the Argentine Republic
, points a
paradigm shift
in the historiography of Argentina, where revisionism has moved from being the second most important perspective into being the mainstream one.
[62]
However,
divulgative historians
often repeat outdated misconceptions about Rosas. This is usually the case of historians from outside of Argentina, who have no bias towards the Argentine topics but unwittingly repeat cliches that have long been refuted by Argentine historiography.
[63]
- ^
Spanish:
Rosas, senor, ese tirano, ese barbaro, asi barbaro y cruel, no era considerado lo mismo por las naciones europeas y civilizadas, y ese juicio de las naciones europeas y civilizadas, pasando a la posteridad, pondra en duda, cuando menos, esa tirania barbara y execrable que Rosas ejercio entre nosotros. Es necesario, pues, marcar con una sancion legislativa declarandole reo de lesa patria para que siquiera quede marcado este punto en la historia, y se vea que el tribunal mas potente, que es el tribunal popular, que es la voz del pueblo soberano por nosotros representado, lanza al monstruo el anatema llamandole traidor y reo de lesa patria... Juicios como estos no deben dejarse a la historia... ¿Que se dira, que se podra decir en la historia cuando se viere que las naciones civilizadas del mundo, para quien nosotros somos un punto... han reconocido en ese tirano un ser digno de tratar con ellos?, ¿que la Inglaterra le ha devuelto sus canones tomados en accion de guerra, y saludado su pabellon sangriento y manchado con sangre inocente con la salva de 21 canonazos?... Este hecho conocido en la historia, seria un gran contrapeso, senor, si dejamos a Rosas sin este fallo. La Francia misma, que inicio la cruzada en que figuraba el general Lavalle, a su tiempo tambien lo abandono, trato con Rosas y saludo su pabellon con 21 canonazos... Yo pregunto, senor, si este hecho no borrara en la historia todo lo que podamos decir, si dejamos sin un fallo a este monstruo que nos ha diezmado por tantos anos... No se puede librar el juicio de Rosas a la historia, como quieren algunos... Es evidente que no puede librarse a la historia el fallo del tirano Rosas... ¡Lancemos sobre Rosas este anatema, que tal vez sea el unico que puede hacerle mal en la historia, porque de otro modo ha de ser dudosa siempre su tirania y tambien sus crimenes... ¿Que se dira en la historia, senor?, y esto si que es hasta triste decirlo, ¿que se dira en la historia cuando se diga que el valiente general Brown, el heroe de la marina en la guerra de la independencia, era el almirante que defendio los derechos de Rosas? ¿Que se dira en la historia sin este anatema, cuando se diga que este hombre que contribuyo con sus glorias y talentos a dar brillo a ese sol de Mayo, que el senor diputado recordaba en su discurso, cuando se diga que el general San Martin, el vencedor de los Andes, el padre de las glorias argentinas, le hizo el homenaje mas grandioso que puede hacer un militar legandole su espada? ¿Se creera esto, senor, si no lanzamos un anatema contra el tirano Rosas? ¿Se creera dentro de 20 anos o de 50, si se quiere ir mas lejos, a ese hombre tal como es, cuando se sepa que Brown y San Martin le servian fieles y le rendian los homenajes mas respetuosos a la par de la Francia y de la Inglaterra? No, senor: diran, los salvajes unitarios, sus enemigos, mentian. No ha sido un tirano: lejos de eso ha sido un gran hombre, un gran general. Es preciso lanzar sin duda ninguna ese anatema sobre el monstruo... ¡Ojala hubieramos imitado al pueblo ingles que arrastro por las calles de Londres el cadaver de Cromwell, y hubieramos arrastrado a Rosas por las calles de Buenos Aires!... Yo he de estar, senor Presidente, por el proyecto. Si el juicio de Rosas lo librasemos al fallo de la historia, no conseguiremos que Rosas sea condenado como tirano, y si tal vez que fuese en ella el mas grande y el mas glorioso de los argentinos.
References
[
edit
]
- ^
a
b
c
Felix Luna, "Con Rosas o contra Rosas", pp. 5?7
- ^
Devoto, pp. 18?19
- ^
Rosa, pp. 135?42
- ^
a
b
Johnson, p. 111
- ^
Lascano, pp. 96?97
- ^
Johnson, pp. 110?111
- ^
Gelman, p. 130
- ^
Lascano, p. 108
- ^
Rosa, p. 491
- ^
Garcia, p. 45
- ^
Lascano, p. 41
- ^
Lascano, p. 42
- ^
Otero, p. 257
- ^
Shumway, p. 211
- ^
a
b
Johnson, p. 112
- ^
Lascano, p. 29
- ^
Rock, p. 51
- ^
a
b
c
Bethell, p. 175
- ^
Devoto, pp. 56?58
- ^
Devoto, pp.73?75
- ^
Devoto, p. 76
- ^
Devoto, p. 82
- ^
Devoto, pp. 82?83
- ^
Devoto, p. 95
- ^
Bethell, pp. 175?176
- ^
Devoto, pp. 94?95
- ^
Devoto, p. 94
- ^
Devoto, pp. 130?31
- ^
Devoto, pp. 140?41
- ^
Devoto, pp. 147?48
- ^
Devoto, p. 158?59
- ^
Devoto pp. 167?69
- ^
Devoto, pp. 178?79
- ^
Devoto, pp. 211?13
- ^
Devoto, pp. 215?16
- ^
a
b
Johnson, p. 114
- ^
Devoto, pp. 201?03
- ^
Devoto, pp. 203?04
- ^
Miller, p. 224
- ^
Devoto, pp. 222?23
- ^
Devoto, pp. 223?24
- ^
Devoto, p. 223
- ^
Devoto, pp. 227?28
- ^
Devoto, p. 237
- ^
Devoto, pp. 238?39
- ^
Devoto, p. 240
- ^
Devoto, pp. 240?41
- ^
Devoto, p. 242
- ^
Devoto, p. 246
- ^
Devoto, pp. 248?49
- ^
Devoto, p. 253
- ^
Devoto, p. 256
- ^
Devoto, pp. 265?68
- ^
a
b
c
Devoto, pp. 268?70
- ^
Rein, pp. 72?73
- ^
Rein, p. 73
- ^
Rein, pp. 7172
- ^
Spinelli, p. 102
- ^
Devoto, pp. 278?81
- ^
Johnson, pp. 108?122
- ^
Luis Alberto Romero (2010).
"Soberbia y paranoia: la idea de Nacion en los libros de texto del siglo XX"
[Pride and Paranoia: The Idea of Nationhood in 20th-Century Textbooks]
(PDF)
(in Spanish). Universidad Nacional de San Martin
. Retrieved
25 March
2013
.
- ^
Horacio Gonzalez
(23 November 2010).
"La batalla de Obligado"
[The battle of Obligado] (in Spanish).
Pagina 12
. Retrieved
27 June
2012
.
- ^
Lascano, pp. 46?47
Bibliography
[
edit
]
- Bethell, Leslie (1996).
Ideas and Ideologies in Twentieth-Century Latin America
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ISBN
0-521-46341-6
.
- Garcia, Irene Pilar (2011).
Juan Bautista Alberdi: su bicentenario
. San Miguel de Tucuman: Junta de estudios historicos de Tucuman.
ISBN
978-987-25142-2-8
.
- Gelman, Jorge
; Raul Fradkin (2010).
Doscientos anos pensando la Revolucion de Mayo
(in Spanish). Buenos Aires: Sudamericana.
ISBN
978-950-07-3179-9
.
- Devoto, Fernando
; Nora Pagano (2009).
Historia de la Historiografia Argentina
(in Spanish). Buenos Aires: Sudamericana.
ISBN
978-950-07-3076-1
.
- Johnson, Lyman (2004).
Death, dismemberment, and memory: body politics in Latin America
. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
ISBN
0-8263-3200-5
.
- Knight, Alan; Rock, David; et al. (2008).
Informal Empire in Latin America: Culture, Commerce, and Capital / edited by Matthew Brown
. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
ISBN
978-1-4051-7932-4
.
- Lascano, Marcelo
(2005).
Imposturas historicas e identidad nacional
(in Spanish). Buenos Aires: El Ateneo.
ISBN
950-02-5900-1
.
- Miller, Nicola
(1999).
In the shadow of the state: Intellectuals the quest for national identity in the twentieth-century Spanish-America
. London: Verso.
ISBN
1-85-984-738-2
.
- Otero, Jose Pacifico (1978).
Historia del libertador don Jose de San Martin
. Buenos Aires: Biblioteca del Oficial (Circulo Militar).
- Rein, Monica Esti (1998).
Politics and Education in Argentina: 1946-1962
. Armonk (N. Y.): M.E.Sharpe inc.
ISBN
0-7656-0209-1
.
- Shumway, Nicolas (1991).
The Invention of Argentina
. Berkeley: University of California Press.
ISBN
0-520-08284-2
.
- Spinelli, Spinelli, Maria Estela (2005).
Los vencedores vencidos: el peronismo y la "Revolucion libertadora"
. Argentina: Editorial Biblos.
ISBN
950-786-494-6
.
{{
cite book
}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link
)
- Felix Luna; Arturo Jauretche; Benjamin Villegas Basavilbaso; Jaime Galvez; Leon Rebollo Paz; Fermin Chavez; Jose Antonio Ginzo; Luis Soler Canas; Arturo Capdevilla; Julio Irazusta; Enrique de Gandia; Ernesto Palacio; Bernardo Gonzalez Arrili; Emilio Ravignani; Jose Antonio Saldias; Arturo Orgaz; Manuel Galvez; Diego Luis Molinari; Ricardo Font Ezcurra; Hector Pedro Blomberg; Ramon Doll; Adolfo Mitre; Rafael Padilla Rorbon; Alberto Gerchunoff; Mariano Bosch; Ramon de Castro Ortega; Carlos Steffens Soler; Julio Donato Alvarez; Roberto de Laferrere; Justiniano de la Fuente; Federico Barbara; Ricardo Caballero (2010).
Con Rosas o contra Rosas
(in Spanish). Santa Fe: H. Garetto Editor.
ISBN
978-987-1493-15-9
.
|
---|
|
|
|
---|
By scale
| |
---|
By source
| |
---|
By topic
| |
---|
|
|
|
|
By country or region
|
---|
Africa
| |
---|
Americas
|
|
---|
Eurasia
|
|
---|
Oceania
| |
---|
|
|
|
|
|
Organizations, publications
|
---|
|
|
|
|