Jump to content

Juan Manuel de Rosas: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 537699486 by Lecen (talk) - see image credits and previous discussion
(12 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 176: Line 176:


Rosas inherited the 'combat saber' of General José de San Martin, maximum hero of Argentina, who praised Rosas for successfully defending Argentina against the European powers.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.lagazeta.com.ar/regreso_del_sable.htm | title=El regreso del Sable Libertador | publisher=La Gazeta Federal | accessdate=December 27, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.lagazeta.com.ar/rosasysanmartin.htm | title=Rosas y San Martin | publisher=La Gazeta Federal | accessdate=December 27, 2012}}</ref>
Rosas inherited the 'combat saber' of General José de San Martin, maximum hero of Argentina, who praised Rosas for successfully defending Argentina against the European powers.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.lagazeta.com.ar/regreso_del_sable.htm | title=El regreso del Sable Libertador | publisher=La Gazeta Federal | accessdate=December 27, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.lagazeta.com.ar/rosasysanmartin.htm | title=Rosas y San Martin | publisher=La Gazeta Federal | accessdate=December 27, 2012}}</ref>
[[File:Rosas memorial.JPG|thumb|180px|Memorial in [[Southampton Old Cemetery]].]]


==Criticism and historical perspective==
==Criticism and historical perspective==
[[File:Adolfo Saldías.jpg|thumb|[[Adolfo Saldías]] wrote the first biography of Rosas.]]
{{See also|Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas}}
{{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.
The figure of Juan Manuel de Rosas and his government generated strong conflicting viewpoints, both in his own time and afterwards.
Line 184: Line 184:
In the context of the [[Argentine Civil War]], Rosas was the main leader of the [[Federales (Argentina)|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.
In the context of the [[Argentine Civil War]], Rosas was the main leader of the [[Federales (Argentina)|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:
When Rosas was deposed in 1852 and the Unitarians took the government, they began a campaign to erase or denigrate the memory of Rosas and his legacy.<ref>Johnson, p. 111</ref> The legislature charged him with [[High treason]] in 1857; the deputee Nicanor Arbarellos advocated for the political manipulation of history to make it reflect their own hatred for Rosas.<ref>{{cite book

{{cquote|Rosas, Sir, that tyrant, that barbarian, so barbaric and cruel, was not considered as such by the European and civilized nations, and this assessment by the European and civilized nations, when it is told to posterity, will call into question, at least, the barbaric and execrable tyranny that Rosas exercised among us. It is therefore necessary to make a legislative sanction declaring him guilty of treason so that this fact is recorded in history, and ensure that the most powerful court, that is the court of the people, which is the voice of the sovereign people whom we represent, casts a curse on the monster by labeling him a traitor and guilty of treason against his country... Judgements like these should not be left to history
<br/>
... What will be said, what can be said in history when it is seen that the civilized nations of the world, to whom we are only a dot ... have recognized in this tyrant a being worthy of dealing with them?, that England returned his guns taken in military action, and saluted his flag, bloody and stained with innocent blood, with a 21-gun salute?. This known fact in history, would be a great contradiction, sir, if we do not take this decision regarding Rosas. France itself, which began the crusade, in which General Lavalle was involved and who, in time also abandoned the crusade, had dealings with Rosas and saluted his flag with 21 cannon shots ... I wonder, sir, if this will not erase all we may have to say from history, if we do not have a ruling against this monster that has decimated us for so many years ...
<br/>
We cannot leave Rosas to history, as some would prefer ... It is clear that the judgment of the tyrant, Rosas, cannot be left to history ... Let's cast on Rosas this curse, perhaps it is the only thing that can harm him in history, because otherwise his tyranny and his crimes must always be doubtful ... What will be said in history, sir? and this is really sad to say, what will be said in history when it is told that the brave general Brown, the hero of the navy in the war of independence, was the admiral who defended the rights of Rosas?

What will be said in history without this curse, when it is said that this man who contributed his talents to give glory and brightness to the May sun, that this Congressman recalled in his speech, that it was said that General San Martin, the conqueror of the Andes, the father of the Argentine glories, paid him the greatest honour a soldier could receive, bequeathing to him his sword? Will his tyranny be believed, sir, if we do not place this curse on the tyrant, Rosas? Will it be believed 20 or 50 years from now, if you wish to go further, that he was a tyrant when it is known that Brown and San Martin served him faithfully and that France and England paid him the most respectful tributes?
<br/>
No, sir, they will say, the savage Unitarians, his enemies lied. He was not a tyrant: far from it, he was a great man, a great General. It is imperative that we declare the curse on the monster without any delay ... Would to God we had imitated the English people that dragged Cromwell's body through the streets of London and likewise dragged Rosas through the streets of Buenos Aires! ... Mr. President, I support the project. If the judgment of Rosas was left to the judgment of history, Rosas won't be condemned as a tyrant, but perhaps he may be labeled as the greatest and most glorious of Argentines.<ref>{{cite book
|title= Historia Argentina, V
|title= Historia Argentina, V
|last= Rosa
|last= Rosa
Line 204: Line 194:
|isbn=
|isbn=
|pages= 491
|pages= 491
|quote= {{lang-es|Rosas, señor, ese tirano, ese bárbaro, así bárbaro 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, pondrá en duda, cuando menos, esa tiranía bárbara y execrable que Rosas ejerció entre nosotros. Es necesario, pues, marcar con una sanción legislativa declarándole reo de lesa patria para que siquiera quede marcado este punto en la historia, y se vea que el tribunal más potente, que es el tribunal popular, que es la voz del pueblo soberano por nosotros representado, lanza al monstruo el anatema llamándole traidor y reo de lesa patria... Juicios como éstos no deben dejarse a la historia... ¿Qué se dirá, qué se podrá 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 cañones tomados en acción de guerra, y saludado su pabellón sangriento y manchado con sangre inocente con la salva de 21 cañonazos?... Este hecho conocido en la historia, sería un gran contrapeso, señor, si dejamos a Rosas sin este fallo. La Francia misma, que inició la cruzada en que figuraba el general Lavalle, a su tiempo también lo abandonó, trató con Rosas y saludó su pabellón con 21 cañonazos... Yo pregunto, señor, si este hecho no borrará en la historia todo lo que podamos decir, si dejamos sin un fallo a este monstruo que nos ha diezmado por tantos años... 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 único que puede hacerle mal en la historia, porque de otro modo ha de ser dudosa siempre su tiranía y también sus crímenes... ¿Qué se dirá en la historia, señor?, y esto sí que es hasta triste decirlo, ¿qué se dirá en la historia cuando se diga que el valiente general Brown, el héroe de la marina en la guerra de la independencia, era el almirante que defendió los derechos de Rosas? ¿Qué se dirá en la historia sin este anatema, cuando se diga que este hombre que contribuyó con sus glorias y talentos a dar brillo a ese sol de Mayo, que el señor diputado recordaba en su discurso, cuando se diga que el general San Martín, el vencedor de los Andes, el padre de las glorias argentinas, le hizo el homenaje más grandioso que puede hacer un militar legándole su espada? ¿Se creerá esto, señor, si no lanzamos un anatema contra el tirano Rosas? ¿Se creerá dentro de 20 años o de 50, si se quiere ir más lejos, a ese hombre tal como es, cuando se sepa que Brown y San Martín le servían fieles y le rendían los homenajes más respetuosos a la par de la Francia y de la Inglaterra? No, señor: dirán, los salvajes unitarios, sus enemigos, mentían. 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... ¡Ojalá hubiéramos imitado al pueblo inglés que arrastró por las calles de Londres el cadáver de Cromwell, y hubiéramos arrastrado a Rosas por las calles de Buenos Aires!... Yo he de estar, señor Presidente, por el proyecto. Si el juicio de Rosas lo librásemos al fallo de la historia, no conseguiremos que Rosas sea condenado como tirano, y sí tal vez que fuese en ella el más grande y el más glorioso de los argentinos.}}}}</ref>|end quote}}
}}</ref>{{#tag:ref|{{lang-es|Rosas, señor, ese tirano, ese bárbaro, así bárbaro 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, pondrá en duda, cuando menos, esa tiranía bárbara y execrable que Rosas ejerció entre nosotros. Es necesario, pues, marcar con una sanción legislativa declarándole reo de lesa patria para que siquiera quede marcado este punto en la historia, y se vea que el tribunal más potente, que es el tribunal popular, que es la voz del pueblo soberano por nosotros representado, lanza al monstruo el anatema llamándole traidor y reo de lesa patria... Juicios como éstos no deben dejarse a la historia... ¿Qué se dirá, qué se podrá 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 cañones tomados en acción de guerra, y saludado su pabellón sangriento y manchado con sangre inocente con la salva de 21 cañonazos?... Este hecho conocido en la historia, sería un gran contrapeso, señor, si dejamos a Rosas sin este fallo. La Francia misma, que inició la cruzada en que figuraba el general Lavalle, a su tiempo también lo abandonó, trató con Rosas y saludó su pabellón con 21 cañonazos... Yo pregunto, señor, si este hecho no borrará en la historia todo lo que podamos decir, si dejamos sin un fallo a este monstruo que nos ha diezmado por tantos años... 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 único que puede hacerle mal en la historia, porque de otro modo ha de ser dudosa siempre su tiranía y también sus crímenes... ¿Qué se dirá en la historia, señor?, y esto sí que es hasta triste decirlo, ¿qué se dirá en la historia cuando se diga que el valiente general Brown, el héroe de la marina en la guerra de la independencia, era el almirante que defendió los derechos de Rosas? ¿Qué se dirá en la historia sin este anatema, cuando se diga que este hombre que contribuyó con sus glorias y talentos a dar brillo a ese sol de Mayo, que el señor diputado recordaba en su discurso, cuando se diga que el general San Martín, el vencedor de los Andes, el padre de las glorias argentinas, le hizo el homenaje más grandioso que puede hacer un militar legándole su espada? ¿Se creerá esto, señor, si no lanzamos un anatema contra el tirano Rosas? ¿Se creerá dentro de 20 años o de 50, si se quiere ir más lejos, a ese hombre tal como es, cuando se sepa que Brown y San Martín le servían fieles y le rendían los homenajes más respetuosos a la par de la Francia y de la Inglaterra? No, señor: dirán, los salvajes unitarios, sus enemigos, mentían. 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... ¡Ojalá hubiéramos imitado al pueblo inglés que arrastró por las calles de Londres el cadáver de Cromwell, y hubiéramos arrastrado a Rosas por las calles de Buenos Aires!... Yo he de estar, señor Presidente, por el proyecto. Si el juicio de Rosas lo librásemos al fallo de la historia, no conseguiremos que Rosas sea condenado como tirano, y sí tal vez que fuese en ella el más grande y el más glorioso de los argentinos.}}
{{lang-en|Rosas, Sir, that tyrant, that barbarian, so barbaric and cruel, was not considered as such by the European and civilized nations, and this assessment by the European and civilized nations, when it is told to posterity, will call into question, at least, the barbaric and execrable tyranny that Rosas exercised among us. It is therefore necessary to make a legislative sanction declaring him guilty of treason so that this fact is recorded in history, and ensure that the most powerful court, that is the court of the people, which is the voice of the sovereign people whom we represent, casts a curse on the monster by labeling him a traitor and guilty of treason against his country... Judgements like these should not be left to history... What will be said, what can be said in history when it is seen that the civilized nations of the world, to whom we are only a dot ... have recognized in this tyrant a being worthy of dealing with them?, that England returned his guns taken in military action, and saluted his flag, bloody and stained with innocent blood, with a 21-gun salute?. This known fact in history, would be a great contradiction, sir, if we do not take this decision regarding Rosas. France itself, which began the crusade, in which General Lavalle was involved and who, in time also abandoned the crusade, had dealings with Rosas and saluted his flag with 21 cannon shots ... I wonder, sir, if this will not erase all we may have to say from history, if we do not have a ruling against this monster that has decimated us for so many years ... We cannot leave Rosas to history, as some would prefer ... It is clear that the judgment of the tyrant, Rosas, cannot be left to history ... Let's cast on Rosas this curse, perhaps it is the only thing that can harm him in history, because otherwise his tyranny and his crimes must always be doubtful ... What will be said in history, sir? and this is really sad to say, what will be said in history when it is told that the brave general Brown, the hero of the navy in the war of independence, was the admiral who defended the rights of Rosas? What will be said in history without this curse, when it is said that this man who contributed his talents to give glory and brightness to the May sun, that this Congressman recalled in his speech, that it was said that General San Martin, the conqueror of the Andes, the father of the Argentine glories, paid him the greatest honour a soldier could receive, bequeathing to him his sword? Will his tyranny be believed, sir, if we do not place this curse on the tyrant, Rosas? Will it be believed 20 or 50 years from now, if you wish to go further, that he was a tyrant when it is known that Brown and San Martin served him faithfully and that France and England paid him the most respectful tributes? No, sir, they will say, the savage Unitarians, his enemies lied. He was not a tyrant: far from it, he was a great man, a great General. It is imperative that we declare the curse on the monster without any delay ... Would to God we had imitated the English people that dragged Cromwell's body through the streets of London and likewise dragged Rosas through the streets of Buenos Aires! ... Mr. President, I support the project. If the judgment of Rosas was left to the judgment of history, Rosas won't be condemned as a tyrant, but perhaps he may be labeled as the greatest and most glorious of Argentines.}}|group=upper-alpha}} President [[Bartolomé Mitre]], enemy of Rosas, began this work by writing historical biographies highly critical of the ''caudillos'',<ref>Johnson, pp. 111-112</ref> and creating a pantheon of national heroes to emulate. Establishing as well the newspaper [[La Nación]] and the [[National Academy of History of Argentina]], his view of history became mainstream.<ref>Goebel, p. 29</ref>


Historians began to weaken their ties with political power in the 1880 decade and wrote neutral works, avoiding the pro-Unitarian bias of the previous works.<ref name="Goebel30">Goebel, p. 30</ref> [[Adolfo Saldías]] wrote the first full biography of Rosas from a dispassionated point of view; Mitre critized it from a political perspective but praised it as a historical work.<ref name="Goebel30"/> [[Ernesto Quesada]] made a new work with a positive tone about Rosas, which employed the ample archives kept by the family of Rosas. They are considered the first [[Historical revisionism|revisionist]] historians of Argentina.<ref>Johnson, p. 113</ref> Thus, the hegemony of the mitrist view of history began to decline.<ref name="Goebel30"/>
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.<ref>{{cite book
|title= Doscientos años pensando la Revolución de Mayo
⚫
|last= Gelman
⚫
|first= Jorge
⚫
|authorlink= Jorge Gelman
⚫
|coauthors= Raúl Fradkin
⚫
|year= 2010
⚫
|publisher= Sudamericana
⚫
|location= Buenos Aires
⚫
|isbn= 978-950-07-3179-9
|page= 130}}</ref> [[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".<ref name="Nueva Escuela">{{cite book
⚫
|title= Historia de la Historiografía Argentina
⚫
|last= Devoto
⚫
|first= Fernando
⚫
|authorlink=
|coauthors= Pagano, Nora
⚫
|year= 2009
|publisher= Editorial Sudamericana
⚫
|location= Buenos Aires
⚫
|isbn= 978-950-07-3076-1
|page= 181
}}</ref> Their work would be more oriented towards the positive things of the early years of Rosas, and less into the most polemic ones.<ref name="Nueva Escuela"/>


Historians became more independent in the 1910 decade, and established the "New School". Authors like Ravignani, Levene, Molinari and Carbia, whose generation came from the [[Great European immigration wave to Argentina]] rather from families in the country, had no involvement with the old disputes and sought to base their works on the usage of [[primary source]]s and unified standards rather than in the politics or social prestige of the authors.<ref>Goebel, p. 32</ref>
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 [[Historical revisionism|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.<ref>{{cite book

|title= Historia de la Historiografía Argentina
Revisionism grew in the 1920s and 1930s decade, which is known as the "Golden Era in Argentine historiography".<ref>Goebel, p. 31</ref> Authors like [[Manuel Gálvez]] and [[Leopoldo Lugones]] were influenced by their political ideas, which began in the left-wing and slowly moved to the right-wing.<ref name="Goebel36">Goebel, p. 36</ref> Liberal historiography, on the other hand, declined the former unanimous demonisation of federalism, caudillism and Rosas.<ref name="Goebel36"/> President [[Juan Domingo Perón]] tried to avoid cultural controversies, and denied recognition to revisionism during his rule.<ref>Rein, p. 75</ref> Antiperonists made several comparisons between Perón and Rosas, and called his presidency the "Second Tyranny";<ref>Rein, p. 76</ref> but the comparison backfired: the huge popularity of Perón and the huge social rejection for the antiperonist military coups led to a slow change in the social perception of Rosas and the popular acceptance of revisionism.<ref>Devoto, pp. 278-281</ref>
⚫
|last= Devoto
⚫
|first= Fernando
|authorlink=
|coauthors= Pagano, Nora
⚫
|year= 2009
|publisher= Editorial Sudamericana
⚫
|location= Buenos Aires
⚫
|isbn= 978-950-07-3076-1
|page= 202
}}</ref> They would expand the work of Saldías and Ernesto Quesada, and developed instead negative views about Mitre, Sarmiento, Rivadavia and the unitarians.


According to the historian [[Félix Luna]], the disputes between supporters and detractors of Rosas are outdated, and modern historiography has incorporated the several corrections made by historical revisionism.<ref name="Luna">Félix Luna, "Con Rosas o contra Rosas", pp. 5–7</ref> 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.<ref name="Luna"/> [[Horacio González]], 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.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-157351-2010-11-23.html |title= La batalla de Obligado|trans_title= The battle of Obligado|language= Spanish|author= [[Horacio González]]|date= November 23, 2010|work= |publisher= [[Página 12]]|accessdate=June 27, 2012}}</ref> However, [[divulgative historian]]s 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.<ref>Lascano, pp. 46-47</ref>
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.<ref>"''Puede decirse que hoy ya se ha publicado toda la documentación importante relativa a Rosas y su tiempo. No cabe esperar que aparezcan papeles que puedan volcar los juicios formulados por las distintas corrientes historiográficas. Incluso es dable afirmar que el tema de Rosas ha perdido interés para la mayoría de los historiadores argentinos''". Luna, p.47</ref><ref>"''Apaciguada como hoy está la disputa tradicional en torno de la figura de Rosas, el debate histórico acalorado parace haberse desplazado a 1910''". Mendelevich, p. 86</ref>


==Legacy==
==Legacy==
Line 259: Line 220:
*[[Argentine Civil War]]
*[[Argentine Civil War]]
*[[List of heads of state of Argentina]]
*[[List of heads of state of Argentina]]

==Footnotes==
{{reflist|group=upper-alpha}}


==References==
==References==
Line 267: Line 231:
* {{cite book |last= Ruiz Moreno|first= Isidoro J.|authorlink= |title= Campañas Militares Argentinas II|year= 2006|publisher= Emece|location= Buenos Aires|isbn= 950-04-2794-X}}
* {{cite book |last= Ruiz Moreno|first= Isidoro J.|authorlink= |title= Campañas Militares Argentinas II|year= 2006|publisher= Emece|location= Buenos Aires|isbn= 950-04-2794-X}}
*{{cite book |last=Centeno |first=Miguel Angel |title=Blood and Debt: War and the Nation-State in Latin America |year= 2002 |publisher=The Pennsylvania State University Press |location=University Park |isbn=978-0-271-02306-9 |ref=harv }}
*{{cite book |last=Centeno |first=Miguel Angel |title=Blood and Debt: War and the Nation-State in Latin America |year= 2002 |publisher=The Pennsylvania State University Press |location=University Park |isbn=978-0-271-02306-9 |ref=harv }}
* {{cite book
⚫
|title= Historia de la Historiografía Argentina
⚫
|last= Devoto
⚫
|first= Fernando
⚫
|authorlink= Fernando Devoto
⚫
|coauthors= Nora Pagano
⚫
|year= 2009
⚫
|publisher= Sudamericana
⚫
|location= Buenos Aires
⚫
|isbn= 978-950-07-3076-1
|language= Spanish}}
*{{cite book |last=Edwards |first=Todd L. |title=Argentina: a global studies handbook |year= 2008 |publisher=ABC-CLIO |location=Santa Barbara |isbn=978-1-85109-986-3 |ref=harv }}
*{{cite book |last=Edwards |first=Todd L. |title=Argentina: a global studies handbook |year= 2008 |publisher=ABC-CLIO |location=Santa Barbara |isbn=978-1-85109-986-3 |ref=harv }}
* {{cite book | last =Goebel | first =Michael | title =Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History | volume = | year =2011 | publisher =Liverpool University Press | location =Liverpool | isbn =9781846312380 | ref = harv }}
*{{cite book |last=Hodge |first=Carl Cavanagh |title=Encyclopedia of the Age of Imperialism, 1800–1914: A-K |year= 2008 |publisher=Greenwood Press|location=Westport |isbn=978-0-313-33406-1 |ref=harv }}
*{{cite book |last=Hodge |first=Carl Cavanagh |title=Encyclopedia of the Age of Imperialism, 1800–1914: A-K |year= 2008 |publisher=Greenwood Press|location=Westport |isbn=978-0-313-33406-1 |ref=harv }}
* {{cite book
⚫
|last= Johnson
⚫
|first= Lyman
|title= Death, dismemberment, and memory: body politics in Latin America
⚫
|year= 2004
|publisher= University of New Mexico Press
|location= United States
|url=http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=KYsMYcZlXf8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Death,+dismemberment,+and+memory:+body+politics+in+Latin+America&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RFzzUPqKI8jj0gHQ6IAI&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
|isbn= 0-8263-3200-5}}
* {{cite book
|title= Imposturas históricas e identidad nacional
⚫
|last= Lascano
⚫
|first= Marcelo
⚫
|authorlink= Marcelo Lascano
|year= 2005
|publisher= El Ateneo
⚫
|location= Buenos Aires
⚫
|isbn= 950-02-5900-1
|language= Spanish}}
*{{cite book |last=Lewis |first=Daniel K. |title=The history of Argentina |year= 2003 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=New York |isbn=978-0-7425-3739-2|ref=harv }}
*{{cite book |last=Lewis |first=Daniel K. |title=The history of Argentina |year= 2003 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=New York |isbn=978-0-7425-3739-2|ref=harv }}
*{{cite book |last=Lewis |first=Paul H. |title=Authoritarian regimes in Latin America: dictators, despots, and tyrants |year= 2006 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Group |location=Lanham |isbn=978-0-7425-3739-2|ref=harv }}
*{{cite book |last=Lewis |first=Paul H. |title=Authoritarian regimes in Latin America: dictators, despots, and tyrants |year= 2006 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Group |location=Lanham |isbn=978-0-7425-3739-2|ref=harv }}
*{{cite book |last=Luna |first=Félix |authorlink=Félix Luna |title= La época de Rosas |year= 2003 |publisher=Grupo Editorial Planeta |location=Buenos Aires |isbn=950-49-1116-1 |ref=harv }}
*{{cite book |last=Lynch |first=John |title=Argentine caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas |year= 2006 |publisher=SR books |location=Lanham |isbn=0-8420-2898-6 |ref=harv }}
*{{cite book |last=Lynch |first=John |title=Argentine caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas |year= 2006 |publisher=SR books |location=Lanham |isbn=0-8420-2898-6 |ref=harv }}
*{{cite book |last=Mendelevich |first=Pablo. |title=El Final |year=2010 |publisher=Ediciones B |location=Buenos Aires |isbn=978-987-627-166-0 |ref=harv }}
*{{cite book |last=Needell |first=Jeffrey D. |title=The Party of Order: the Conservatives, the State, and Slavery in the Brazilian Monarchy, 1831–1871 |year=2006 |publisher=Stanford University Press |location=Stanford |isbn=0-8047-5369-5 |ref=harv }}
*{{cite book |last=Needell |first=Jeffrey D. |title=The Party of Order: the Conservatives, the State, and Slavery in the Brazilian Monarchy, 1831–1871 |year=2006 |publisher=Stanford University Press |location=Stanford |isbn=0-8047-5369-5 |ref=harv }}
*{{cite book |last=O'Donnell |first=Pacho |title=Juan Manuel de Rosas: El maldito de la historia oficial |year=2008 |publisher=Grupo Editorial Norma |location=Buenos Aires |isbn=978-987-545-555-9 |ref=harv }}
*{{cite book |last=O'Donnell |first=Pacho |title=Juan Manuel de Rosas: El maldito de la historia oficial |year=2008 |publisher=Grupo Editorial Norma |location=Buenos Aires |isbn=978-987-545-555-9 |ref=harv }}
*{{cite book |last=Reid |first=Michael |title=Forgotten continent: the battle for Latin America's soul |year= 2007 |publisher=Edmundsbury Press |isbn=978-0-300-11616-8 |ref=harv }}
*{{cite book |last=Reid |first=Michael |title=Forgotten continent: the battle for Latin America's soul |year= 2007 |publisher=Edmundsbury Press |isbn=978-0-300-11616-8 |ref=harv }}
* {{cite book |last= Rein|first= Mónica Esti|authorlink= |title= Politics and Education in Argentina: 1946-1962|url= http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=LIIMwr2nPGQC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false|accessdate= |year= 1998|publisher= M.E.Sharpe inc.|location= United States|isbn= 0-7656-0209-1|page= |pages=}}
*{{cite book |last=Richard |first=J. M. |title=The Link Persona |year= 2010 |publisher=Eloquent books |location=Durnham |isbn=978-1-60860-486-9 |ref=harv }}
*{{cite book |last=Richard |first=J. M. |title=The Link Persona |year= 2010 |publisher=Eloquent books |location=Durnham |isbn=978-1-60860-486-9 |ref=harv }}
*{{cite book
*{{cite book
Line 285: Line 279:
|publisher= Bernabé y Cía
|publisher= Bernabé y Cía
|location= Buenos Aires}}
|location= Buenos Aires}}
* {{cite book

|title= Con Rosas o contra Rosas
|last= Félix Luna, Arturo Jauretche, Benjamín Villegas Basavilbaso, Jaime Gálvez, León Rebollo Paz, Fermín Chávez, José Antonio Ginzo, Luis Soler Cañas, Arturo Capdevilla, Julio Irazusta, Enrique de Gandia, Ernesto Palacio, Bernardo González Arrili, Emilio Ravignani, José Antonio Saldías, Arturo Orgaz, Manuel Gálvez, Diego Luis Molinari, Ricardo Font Ezcurra, Héctor Pedro Blomberg, Ramón Doll, Adolfo Mitre, Rafael Padilla Rorbón, Alberto Gerchunoff, Mariano Bosch, Ramón de Castro Ortega, Carlos Steffens Soler, Julio Donato Álvarez, Roberto de Laferrere, Justiniano de la Fuente, Federico Barbará, Ricardo Caballero
⚫
|year= 2010
|publisher= H. Garetto Editor
⚫
|location= Santa Fe
⚫
|isbn= 978-987-1493-15-9
|language= Spanish}}
{{refend}}
{{refend}}


Revision as of 17:36, 11 February 2013

For the station, see Juan Manuel de Rosas (Buenos Aires Metro).
Juan Manuel de Rosas
Painting of the head and shoulders of a man in 19th century military garb with ornate epaulettes and sash. He is looking at the viewer.
Juan Manuel de Rosas around age 47, c.1840. Oil painting by Cayetano Descalzi
17th Governor of Buenos Aires Province
In office
March 7, 1835 – February, 3 1852
Preceded byManuel Vicente Maza
Succeeded byVicente López y Planes
13th Governor of Buenos Aires Province
In office
December 8, 1829 – December 17, 1832
Preceded byJuan José Viamonte
Succeeded byJuan Ramón Balcarce
Personal details
Born
Juan Manuel José Domingo Ortiz de Rozas y López de Osornio

March 30, 1793
Buenos Aires, Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata
DiedMarch 14, 1877(1877-03-14) (aged 83)
Southampton, United Kingdom
NationalityArgentine
Political partyFederal Party
SpouseEncarnación Ezcurra
Signature
NicknameEl Restaurador (The Restorer)
Military service
AllegianceViceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, Argentine Confederation
RankBrigadier
UnitRegiment of Migueletes
CommandsMilitias of Buenos Aires
Battles/warsBritish invasions of the Rio de la Plata

Battle of Márquez Bridge
First Conquest of the Desert

Battle of Caseros

Juan Manuel de Rosas (born Juan Manuel José Domingo Ortiz de Rozas y López de Osornio; March 30, 1793 – March 14, 1877), was an Argentine caudillo who served as governor of the Buenos Aires province and Supreme Chief of the Argentine Confederation. He was born to a wealthy family in the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, but became a successful cattle ranching businessman by his own determination. A controversial figure, Rosas' support for both democracy and authoritarianism has baffled critics and historians, who to this day hold opposing views of the caudillo.

The political career of Juan Manuel de Rosas began in 1820, amidst the Argentine Civil Wars. In Buenos Aires, Rosas became leader of an effective armed resistance which propelled him to the governorship in 1829. Later, as leader of the Federal Pact, Rosas fought the Unitarian League, defeating it in 1831. His remaining term as governor oversaw economic and political stability through the formation of the Argentine Confederation, a federation of states modeled after the United States of America. After his term ended in 1832, Rosas refused to run again despite overwhelming popular support.

Returing to the Pampas, Rosas' focus shifted to securing the frontier from Amerindian malones (raiding bands) who attacked Argentine settlements. After securing alliances with friendly indigenous groups, he waged the 1832 First Conquest of the Desert against the Ranquel and Mapuche. The triumphant campaign greatly increased Buenos Aires' territory and pacified the Amerindians.

In 1835, continuing political instability and the controversial murder of Facundo Quiroga paved the way for Rosas' return to the governorship of Buenos Aires. He was elected by popular vote and given the sum of public power. Rosas' second term was marked by a strict social order lauded by his supporters and criticized for its brutality by his opponents. Although slavery was not abolished during his rule, Rosas sponsored liberal policies allowing them greater liberties.

Rosas' second term also dealt with a conflict against the Peru–Bolivian Confederation, as well as maritime blockades imposed by France and the United Kingdom, continuing problems with the Unitarians, and a belligerent Uruguay led by the Colorado Party. Ultimately, in the later stages of the Guerra Grande, Justo José de Urquiza (governor of Entre Ríos) united Rosas' political opponents and Brazil to decisively defeat Rosas in the 1852 Battle of Caseros. Deposed from power, Juan Manuel de Rosas spent the rest of his life exiled in Southampton, United Kingdom.

Biography

Early life

Juan Manuel de Rosas was the son of León Ortiz de Rozas and his wife Agustina López de Osornio, who had twenty sons in total. Born to one of the wealthiest families in the Río de la Plata region, Rosas ran away from home at a young age and began working in the fields of his cousins Juan José and Nicolás Anchorena. He modified his last name from "Rozas" to "Rosas" and removed the "Ortiz" part of it.[1]

In 1806, during the Napoleonic Wars, Britain launched the British invasions of the Rio de la Plata and captured Buenos Aires. Santiago de Liniers organized a counter-attack in Montevideo. Juan Manuel de Rosas, aged 13, joined the forces of Liniers during his landing at Olivos along with several friends. Liniers wrote to the parents of Rosas after the battle, congratulating them for the bravery shown by Rosas in the liberation of Buenos Aires.[2] It was suspected that there would be a new British attack soon, and the city organized the military defense. As he preferred being in the cavalry, he joined the regiment of Migueletes, with the rank of ensign. Before the conflict, he disarmed and captured an insubordinate drunk corporal, but intervened before the military authorities to prevent a death sentence on him. Rosas fought in the battle of Miserere; the British were ultimately defeated. Liniers made further praises about Rosas' bravery to his parents, and proposed to send him to Spain to pursue a military career. Agustina opposed the proposal, because she had lost her father and a brother in military conflicts with the natives. Rosas accepted her request, and declined the proposal of Liniers. He left the regiment of Migueletes when Liniers, who had been promoted to viceroy, was replaced by Baltasar Hidalgo de Cisneros.[3]

Portrait of Rosas as a child.

After that, he resumed working in the fields as an arriero, driving cattle through the immense pampas. When he was twenty-two, he created a business with Juan Nepomuceno Terrero and Luis Dorrego (brother of Manuel Dorrego) which immediately flourished. He married on March 16, 1813, shortly before turning 20 the almost 18-year-old María de la Encarnación de Ezcurra y Arguibel. They had one child, a daughter Manuela Robustiana de Rosas y Ezcurra, born in Buenos Aires on May 24, 1817. Manuela eventually married the son of Juan Terrero. Rosas' businesses benefited when the Supreme Director Juan Martín de Pueyrredón ordered the closing of salt-meat plants, which allowed him to buy 300,000 hectares of land. Both Rosas and Anchorena had a number of slaves working at their estancias.

He commanded a strict discipline from the gauchos under his command by sharing their conduct and customs, and by subjecting himself to the same conduct he demanded from them. The territories of Rosas were next to those of the pampas, the Tehuelches and Ranqueles, so his gauchos were organized as a military force to resist malones.

Rosas joins the Civil War

Execution of federal governor Manuel Dorrego.

In 1820, during the Brazilian invasion of the Banda Oriental, provincial caudillos Estanislao López and Francisco Ramírez joined forces and advanced on Buenos Aires. The Supreme Director José Rondeau requested José de San Martín and Manuel Belgrano to return to Buenos Aires with the Army of the Andes and the Army of the North, but San Martín stayed in Peru to keep fighting against the Royalists, and the Army of the North mutinied to avoid joining the Argentine Civil War. Buenos Aires had weak local defenses, which were defeated during the battle of Cepeda. The authority of the Supreme Directors was terminated.

Ranchers feared that the ongoing events would lead to anarchy, and organized a regiment of gauchos to face the situation. Rosas was trusted to lead them. He promoted the designation of Martín Rodríguez as governor of Buenos Aires, and negotiated with López his return to Santa Fe in exchange of 25,000 cattle. This started a strong relation between Rosas and López, which lasted for years.

Years later, Bernardino Rivadavia resigned as president of Argentina, incapable of securing the military victory in the Cisplatine War, and Manuel Dorrego was chosen as governor of Buenos Aires. Under his rule, Rosas would be promoted to commander of the militias of Buenos Aires. However, the armies returning from Brazil turned against Dorrego, and Juan Lavalle executed him and conducted a coup against the government of Buenos Aires. The Unitarians started a reign of terror, aiming to destroy all Federalists. In 1829, because of higher death rates than births the demographic growth was negative. During that time, José de San Martín had returned from Europe, but disgusted with the new political situation, he refused to leave the ship and returned to Europe.

The other provinces did not recognize Lavalle as a legitimate governor, and supported the Rosist resistance instead. Lavalle was defeated a short time later at the Battle of Márquez Bridge by the forces of Rosas and López. López returned to Santa Fe, which was menaced by José María Paz, while Rosas kept Lavalle under siege and forced him to resign with the Cañuelas pact. Juan José Viamonte was designated as governor, and the legislature removed during Lavalle's revolution was restored. This legislature then elected Rosas as governor.

First government

Rosas' strict authority prevented the country from falling into anarchy. The image is a poster from the time when Rosas ruled, calling him "The exterminator of anarchy"

As a governor, Rosas ruled with strict authority. He considered that, given the social segregation of the Argentine Confederation at the time, it was the only way to keep it together and prevent anarchy.

The King can be compared with a father, and reciprocally a father can be compared with the King, and then set the duties of the monarch by those of the parental authorithy. Love, govern, reward and punish is what a King and a father must do. In the end, there's nothing less legitimate than anarchy, which removes property and security from the people, as force becomes then the only right.

Rosas faced opposition from the unitarian provinces in the north. José María Paz, after defeating Facundo Quiroga at the battle of Tablada, took control of Cordoba province and started a reign of terror to destroy all federals in the zone, similar to the one started by Lavalle in Buenos Aires. The newspaper "La Gaceta" numbered the victims of the unitarian terror as 2,500 victims. Paz expanded his influence by creating the Unitarian League, while Rosas created the Federal Pact instead. The plans of Paz would fail when his horse was taken down and he was captured. Federalist José Vicente Reinafé, close to López, replaced him as governor of Córdoba. Córdoba, Santiago del Estero, La Rioja and the provinces of Cuyo joined the Federal Pact in 1831, Catamarca, Tucumán and Salta did so the following year. As for Paz himself, he was held captive by Estanislao López, who refused to execute him. He requested Rosas to check that it was the will of all the provinces to execute Paz, but Rosas did not accept the request. He considered that the fate of Paz should be decided solely by López, who held him prisoner.

One of the keys to the economic supremacy of Buenos Aires was its monopoly over the port and customs of Buenos Aires, the only one linking the Confederation with Europe. Rosas refused to lift control over it, considering that Buenos Aires faced alone the international debt that was generated by the Argentine War of Independence and the Cisplatine War.

The defeat of Paz and the expansion of the Federal Pact further ushered in a period of economic and political stability. As a result, Federalists were divided between two political trends: those who wanted the calling of a Constituent Assembly to write a Constitution, and those who supported Rosas in delaying it. Rosas thought that the best way to organize the Argentine Confederation was as a federation of federated states, similar to the successful States of the United States; each one should write its own local constitution and organize itself, and a national constitution should be written at the end, without being rushed.

He had a successful and popular first term, but refused to run for a second even though public support was strong.[4]

First Conquest of the Desert

Main article: First Conquest of the Desert

After his resignation as governor, Rosas left Buenos Aires and started the first Conquest of the Desert, to expand and secure the farming territories and prevent indigenous attacks. Rosas was aware that malones were not done because of evil desires but because of the lacking lifestyle condition of the indigenous peoples.[citation needed] As a result, he had preference for a policy of doing pacts or giving gifts or bribes to the caciques before employing military force. The hostile ranquel cacique Yanquetruz was replaced by Payné, who became a Rosas ally. Juan Manuel, in turn, adopted his son and raised him at his estancia. The pehuenche Cafulcurá was made colonel and allowed to distribute large numbers of gifts among his people; in turn, he made the compromise of not making any more malones. On the other hand, caciques like the pehuenche Chocorí who defied Rosas were defeated.

The Second voyage of HMS Beagle led Charles Darwin to meet Rosas.

Charles Darwin met Rosas in 1833, and wrote about it in The Voyage of the Beagle. He was at Carmen de Patagones and knew that Rosas was located nearby, close to the Colorado River. He had heard about him from before, so he moved to meet him. He described him as a man of extraordinary character, a perfect horseman who conformed to the dress and habits of the Gauchos and "has a most predominant influence in the country, which it seems he will use to its prosperity and advancement".[5] Although in a footnote added in the second edition published in 1845, Darwin notes that "This prediction has turned out to be entirely and miserably wrong." Darwin included a story of how Rosas had himself put in the stocks for inadvertently breaking his own rule of not wearing knives on Sundays. This appealed to his men's sense of egalitarianism and justice. Darwin also described an anecdote about a pair of buffoons.

By the end of the first Conquest of the Desert, Buenos Aires increased its lands by thousands of square kilometers, which were distributed among new and older hacendados. The natives did not make any more malones, accepted to provide military aid to Rosas in case of need, and stayed in peaceful terms for all the remainder of Rosas' government.

Even being absent, the political influence of Rosas in Buenos Aires was still strong, and his wife Encarnación Ezcurra was in charge of keeping good relations with the peoples of the city. On October 11, 1833, the city was filled with announcements of a trial against Rosas. A large number of gauchos and poor people made the Revolution of the Restorers, a demonstration at the gates of the legislature, praising Rosas and demanding the resignation of governor Juan Ramón Balcarce. The troops organized to fight the demonstration mutinied and joined it. The legislature finally gave up the trial, and a month later ousted Balcarce and replaced him with Juan José Viamonte. The Revolution also led to the creation of the Sociedad Popular Restauradora, also known as "Mazorca".

Second government

The Buenos Aires legislature released the sum of public power on Rosas.

The weak governments of Balcarce and Viamonte led the legislature to request Rosas to take the government once more. For doing so he requested the sum of public power, which the legislature denied four times. Rosas even resigned as commander of militias to influence the legislature. The context changed with the social commotion generated by the death of Facundo Quiroga, responsibility for which is disputed (different authors attribute it to Estanislao López, the Reinafé brothers, or Rosas himself). The legislature accepted then to give him the sum of public power. Even so, Rosas requested confirmation on whenever the people agreed with it, so the legislature organized a referendum about it. Every free man within the age of majority living in the city was allowed to vote for "Yes" or "No": 9.316 votes supported the release of the sum of public power on Rosas, and only 4 rejected it. There are divided opinions on the topic: Domingo Faustino Sarmiento compared Rosas with historical dictators, while José de San Martín considered that the situation in the country was so chaotic that a strong authority was needed to create order.

Although slavery was not abolished during Rosas' rule, Afro Argentines had a positive image of him. He allowed them to gather in groups related to their African origin, and financed their activities. Troop formations included many of them, because joining the army was one of the ways to become a free negro, and in many cases slave owners were forced to release them to strengthen the armies. There was an army made specifically of free negros, the "Fourth Battalion of Active Militia". The liberal policy towards slaves generated controversy with neighbouring Brazil, because fugitive Brazilian slaves saw Argentina as a safe haven: they were recognized as free men at the moment they crossed the Argentine borders, and by joining the armies they were protected from persecution of their former masters.

The people who opposed Rosas formed a group called Asociacion de Mayo or May Brotherhood. It was a literary group that became politically active and aimed at exposing Rosas' actions. Some of the literature against him includes The Slaughter House, Socialist Dogma, Amalia and Facundo. Meetings which had high attendance at first soon had few members attending out of fear of prosecution. Rosas' opponents during his rule were dissidents, such as José María Paz, Salvador M. del Carril, Juan Bautista Alberdi, Esteban Echeverria, Bartolomé Mitre and Domingo Faustino Sarmiento.[4] Rosas political opponents were exiled to other countries, such as Uruguay and Chile.

First French blockade

Main article: French blockade of the Río de la Plata
Uruguayan president Manuel Oribe, ousted by the rebel Fructuoso Rivera. Rosas recognized him as the legitimate Uruguayan president, and sought to restore him in power.

The Peru–Bolivian Confederation declared the War of the Confederation against Argentina and Chile. Its protector Andrés de Santa Cruz supported European interests in South America, as well as the Unitarians, whereas Rosas and the Chilean Diego Portales did not. As a result, France gave full support to Santa Cruz in this war. Britain also supported Santa Cruz, but only by diplomatic means. Trusting in the military power at his disposal, Santa Cruz declared war against both countries at the same time. Initially, the Peruvian-Bolivian forces had the advantage, and captured and executed Portales. The war did not develop favorably for Argentina in the north, and the French Roger moved to Buenos Aires to request the surrender of Argentina. He demanded that two French citizens be released from prison, that two more be exempted from military service, and that France receive the same commercial privileges as granted by Bernardino Rivadavia to Britain. Although the demands themselves were not onerous, Rosas considered that they would set a precedent for further French interference in the internal affairs of Argentina, and refused to comply. As a result, France started a naval blockade against Buenos Aires.

Rosas took advantage of British interests in the zone: minister Manuel Moreno pointed out to the British Foreign Office that commerce between Argentina and Britain was being harmed by the French blockade, and that it would be a mistake for Britain to support it. The French judged that the people would seize the opportunity to stand against Rosas, but underestimated his popularity. With the nation being threatened by two European powers as well as two neighbouring countries allied with them, internal patriotic loyalty increased to the point that even some notable Unitarians who had fled to Montevideo returned to the country to offer their military help, such as Soler, Lamadrid and Espinosa. Things became more complicated for France as time passed: Andrés Santa Cruz was weakening, the strategy employed by Moreno was bearing fruit, and the French themselves started to have doubts about maintaining a conflict that they had expected to be quite short. Also, Britain would not allow the French to deploy troops, as they did not want a European competitor gaining territorial strength in the zone. Domingo Cullen, governor of Santa Fe replacing the ill López, considered that Rosas had nationalized a conflict that involved just Buenos Aires, and proposed to the French that they should encourage Santa Fe, Córdoba, Entre Ríos and Corrientes to secede, creating a new country that would obey them, if this new country would be spared the naval blockade. Also, Manuel Oribe, president of Uruguay and allied with Rosas, was ousted by Fructuoso Rivera with French aid. France wanted Rivera and Cullen to join forces and take Buenos Aires, while their ships kept the blockade. This alliance did not take place, as Juan Pablo López, brother of Estanislao López, defeated Cullen and drove him away from the province. Also, Andrés Santa Cruz was defeated by Chile in the Battle of Yungay, and the Peru–Bolivian Confederation ceased to exist. Now Rosas was free to focus all his attention on the French blockade.

His wife Encarnación died in Buenos Aires on October 20, 1838.

Rivera was urged by France to take military action against Rosas, but he was reluctant to do so, considering that the French underestimated his strength, even more after Santa Cruz's defeat. As a result, they elected Juan Lavalle to lead the attack, who asked not to share command with Rivera. As a result, each led his own army. His imminent attack was backed up by conspiracies in Buenos Aires, which were discovered and aborted by the Mazorca. Manuel Vicente Maza and his son were among the conspirators, and were executed as a result. Pedro Castelli also organized an ill-fated demonstration against Rosas, and was executed as well. Rosas did not wait to be attacked, and ordered Pascual Echagüe to cross the Parana river and move the fight to Uruguay. The Uruguayan armies split: Rivera returned to defend Montevideo, and Lavalle moved to Entre Ríos alone. He expected that local populations would join him against Rosas and increase his forces, but he found severe resistance, so he moved to Corrientes. Ferré defeated López, and Rivera defeated Echagüe, leaving Lavalle a clear path towards Buenos Aires. However, by that point France had lost faith in the effectiveness of the blockade, as what had been thought would be an easy and short conflict was turning into a long, possibly unwinnable, war. France started to negotiate for peace with the Confederation, and removed financial support from Lavalle. He found no help from local towns either, and there was strong desertion in his ranks. Buenos Aires was ready to resist Lavalle's attack, but his lack of support forced him to withdraw.

The civil war continues

Rosas and López spared the life of José María Paz, but he broke his oath and took arms against them after escaping from prison.

The unitarians and colorados (federalists) kept up their hostilities against Rosas, even after the defeat of France. The new plan was that Ferré and Rivera, in Corrientes and Uruguay, would create a new army, while Lavalle and Lamadrid moved to the north. Lavalle would move to La Rioja and distract the Federal armies, while Lamadrid organized another army at Tucumán. By this time José María Paz had escaped from his imprisonment. Rosas spared his life because he had sworn never to attack the Confederation again, but he broke his oath. His presence benefited the anti-Rosas forces, but also generated internal strife: Ferré gave him the command of the armies of Corrientes, which Rivera did not like. Rivera even accused Paz of being a spy of Rosas. Nevertheless, the combined forces of Paz, Rivera and unitarian ships at the river had the federal forces of Echague at Santa Fe surrounded. To counter the unitarian naval supremacy Guillermo Brown organized a naval squadron; it defeated captain Coe at Santa Lucía.

Oribe defeated the forces of Lavalle at La Rioja, but Lavalle himself managed to escape to Tucuman. Lamadrid attacked San Juan, but was completely defeated. At Tucuman Oribed defeated Lavalle, who barely escaped with a group of 200 men to the north; he was killed shortly after in a confusing episode. This ended the anti-Rosas threat in the Argentine northwest.

Rivera threatened to end their alliance if Ferré insisted in favoring Paz. Rivera wanted to annex the Riograndense Republic (part of Rio Grande do Sul, that had declared independence from Brazil and was fighting the War of the Farrapos) and the Argentine mesopotamia into a projected Federation of Uruguay, but Paz was against that. Paz defeated Echague, and Rivera defeated the new federal governor of Entre Ríos, Justo José de Urquiza. Federalist Juan Pablo López from Santa Fe changed sides to the unitarian ranks.

Rosas was again in a weak position, and would not have been able to resist an attack. But Paz, Ferré, Rivera and López had conflicting battle plans, and their armies did not move, which gave Oribe time to return from the north. The forces of Santa Fe refused to fight for the unitarians, and massive defection reduced López's armies from 2.500 men to 500. He was easily defeated at Coronda and Paso Aguirre. Ferré was finally interested in Rivera's federation, and put Paz aside. Rivera and Oribe, both considering themselves rightful presidents of Uruguay, would battle. The battle of Arroyo Grande was a decisive victory for Oribe, and Rivera barely escaped alive. The unitarian threat to Rosas had been again removed.

Anglo-French blockade

Main article: Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata
The Battle of Vuelta de Obligado.

After the victory of Oribe at Arroyo Grande, Britain and France intervened in the conflict. Their ambassadors, Mandeville and De Lurde, demanded that Rosas retreat from Uruguayan territory. Rosas did not reply, and ordered Brown to support Oribe by blockading Montevideo. British commodore John Brett Purvis attacked the Argentine navy, taking over the vessels. Mandeville and De Lurde were replaced by Ousley and Deffaudis. The public purposes of the Anglo-French intervention were to protect the Uruguayan independence against Oribe, defend the recently-proclaimed independence of Paraguay, and end the civil wars in the La Plata River region. But there were also secret purposes: to turn Montevideo into a "commercial factory", to force the free navigation of the rivers, to turn the Argentine Mesopotamia into a new country, to set the borders of Uruguay, Paraguay and the Mesopotamia (without Brazilian intervention), and to help the anti-rosists to depose the governor of Buenos Aires and install one loyal to the European powers instead.[citation needed]

The European powers needed a convincing argument to justify a declaration of war. To this end, Florencio Varela requested that former Federalist José Rivera Indarte write a list of crimes that Rosas could be blamed for. The French firm Lafone & Co paid him with a penny for each death listed. The list, named Blood tables, included deaths caused by military actions of the unitarians (including Lavalle's invasion of Buenos Aires), soldiers shot during wartime because of mutiny, treason or espionage, victims of common crimes and even people who were still alive. He also listed Nomen nescio (NN) deaths (unidentified people); some entries were listed more than once. He also blamed Rosas for the death of Facundo Quiroga. With all this, Indarte listed 480 deaths, and was paid with two pounds sterling (about £140 in 2011 based on the retail price index, or £1500 based on average earnings[6]). He tried to add to the list 22,560 deaths, the number caused by military conflicts in Argentina from 1829 to that date, but the French refused to pay for them. Indarte wrote in his libel that "it is a holy action to kill Rosas". Lafone & Co, who paid for the Blood tables, had control of Uruguayan customs, and would have greatly benefited from a new blockade of Buenos Aires. [citation needed] In March 1841, Indarte was the mastermind behind a failed bid against Rosas life, which consisted in sending him a firing device concealed in a diplomatic box, known as La Máquina Infernal ("The Infernal Machine").[7]

Giuseppe Garibaldi, commanding an Italian group, started hostilities by occupying Colonia del Sacramento and Isla Martín García, and led the controversial sack of Gualeguaychú. With the Uruguay river secured, the Anglo-French navy intended to control the Paraná river as well. Worried by the gravity of the danger, Rosas instructed Lucio Mancilla to fortify a section of the Parana to prevent the foreign navy from going any further. A similar study had been made years earlier by Hipólito Vieytes during the Argentine War of Independence, finding that a good strategic point was in Obligado.

An Anglo-French a convoy of three steamboats, many armed sailboats, and 90 merchant ships sailed up the Parana. Mansilla fortified Obligado with artillery, and closed the river with chains. The battle of Vuelta de Obligado took many hours, and the navy finally forced their way through. However, 38 merchant ships returned to Montevideo, and word of the unequal fight generated support for Rosas across most of South America. Mansilla continued the attack at San Lorenzo and Quebracho. The expedition was a commercial failure, and the second battle at Quebracho resulted in the sinking of several merchant vessels.

Although the Anglo-French force defeated Argentine forces, the cost of victory proved excessive in light of the ferocious resistance from the Argentines. As a result, the British sought to exit from the confrontation, followed later by their French allies. After long negotiations, Britain, and then France, agreed to lift the blockade. Both countries made a 21-gun salute to the flag of Argentina. Both treaties are viewed as a considerable triumph for General Rosas as it was the first time the emerging South American nations were able to impose their will on two European Empires.

Decline and fall

The throes of battle: Several regiments of uniformed foot soldiers marching in formation, some are fighting. Officers on horseback are leading the troops. Large buildings are in the background.
Rendition of the Battle of Caseros, February, 1852. Rosas' defeat at Caseros resulted in his overthrow and exile.

With the victory over Britain and France and the decline of the resistance in Montevideo, the civil war began to near its end, and several people who had fled from the country began to return to it. Rosas' tenure as governor was to end in 1850, but the legislature of Buenos Aires reelected him once more, rejecting his resignation. Several other provinces manifested their desire to keep Rosas in power: Córdoba, Salta, Mendoza, San Luis, Santa Fe, Catamarca. However, Justo José de Urquiza, governor of Entre Ríos, had growing conflicts with Rosas, and sought to depose him. For this purpose, he began to seek allies to reinforce him. His only support within the country was from Benjamín Virasoro, governor of Corrientes. Montevideo welcomed Urquiza's support, but Paraguay refused to join forces with him. On May 1, 1851, Urquiza announced that he accepted Rosas' resignation, retrieving for Entre Ríos the power to manage international relations delegated on Buenos Aires. Without ships, Urquiza sought the help of the Empire of Brazil as well. However, he thought that the Brazilian help would be of little use, and only agreed to accept them by the intervention of Herrera.[8]

Urquiza began his military campaign in Uruguay, attacking the forces of Manuel Oribe. With the new military conflict, Rosas declined his resignation request. Without further support from Buenos Aires, Oribe was finally defeated, and his forces incorporated to those of Urquiza.[9]

Rosas took the personal command of the forces of Buenos Aires, being critiziced by his generals Lucio Mansilla and Ángel Pacheco for his passivity. He did not attack Entre Ríos during Urquiza's campaign in Uruguay, when his forces would have had the advantage, and spent his time with trivial concerns. Entre Ríos, Corrientes, Brazil and Uruguay agreed the actions against Rosas in the secured Montevideo, where Entre Ríos and Corrientes would lead the operation and Uruguay and Brazil would provide only auxiliar armies. Urquiza defeated Rosas in the Battle of Caseros, on February 3, 1852.[10]

Rosas spent the rest of his life in exile, in the United Kingdom, as a farmer in Southampton. He was resident at "Rockstone Lodge" No.8 Carlton Crescent (now known as "Ambassador House") from 1852 until 1865 when he moved to Burgess Street Farm.[11]

Rosas inherited the 'combat saber' of General José de San Martin, maximum hero of Argentina, who praised Rosas for successfully defending Argentina against the European powers.[12][13]

Criticism and historical perspective

Adolfo Saldías wrote the first biography of Rosas.
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.

When Rosas was deposed in 1852 and the Unitarians took the government, they began a campaign to erase or denigrate the memory of Rosas and his legacy.[14] The legislature charged him with High treason in 1857; the deputee Nicanor Arbarellos advocated for the political manipulation of history to make it reflect their own hatred for Rosas.[15][A] President Bartolomé Mitre, enemy of Rosas, began this work by writing historical biographies highly critical of the caudillos,[16] and creating a pantheon of national heroes to emulate. Establishing as well the newspaper La Nación and the National Academy of History of Argentina, his view of history became mainstream.[17]

Historians began to weaken their ties with political power in the 1880 decade and wrote neutral works, avoiding the pro-Unitarian bias of the previous works.[18] Adolfo Saldías wrote the first full biography of Rosas from a dispassionated point of view; Mitre critized it from a political perspective but praised it as a historical work.[18] Ernesto Quesada made a new work with a positive tone about Rosas, which employed the ample archives kept by the family of Rosas. They are considered the first revisionist historians of Argentina.[19] Thus, the hegemony of the mitrist view of history began to decline.[18]

Historians became more independent in the 1910 decade, and established the "New School". Authors like Ravignani, Levene, Molinari and Carbia, whose generation came from the Great European immigration wave to Argentina rather from families in the country, had no involvement with the old disputes and sought to base their works on the usage of primary sources and unified standards rather than in the politics or social prestige of the authors.[20]

Revisionism grew in the 1920s and 1930s decade, which is known as the "Golden Era in Argentine historiography".[21] Authors like Manuel Gálvez and Leopoldo Lugones were influenced by their political ideas, which began in the left-wing and slowly moved to the right-wing.[22] Liberal historiography, on the other hand, declined the former unanimous demonisation of federalism, caudillism and Rosas.[22] President Juan Domingo Perón tried to avoid cultural controversies, and denied recognition to revisionism during his rule.[23] Antiperonists made several comparisons between Perón and Rosas, and called his presidency the "Second Tyranny";[24] but the comparison backfired: the huge popularity of Perón and the huge social rejection for the antiperonist military coups led to a slow change in the social perception of Rosas and the popular acceptance of revisionism.[25]

According to the historian Félix Luna, the disputes between supporters and detractors of Rosas are outdated, and modern historiography has incorporated the several corrections made by historical revisionism.[26] 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.[26] Horacio González, 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.[27] 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.[28]

Legacy

See also: Repatriation of Juan Manuel de Rosas's body
File:20pesos.jpg
Banknote of 20 Argentine pesos, featuring Rosas.

The date of November 20, anniversary of the battle of Vuelta de Obligado, has been declared "Day of National Sovereignty" of Argentina, following a request by revisionist historian José María Rosa.[29][30] This observance day was raised in 2010 to a public holiday by Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.[31] Rosas has been included in the banknotes of 20 Argentine pesos, with his face and his daughter Manuela Rosas in the front and a depiction of the battle of Vuelta de Obligado in the back. A monument of Rosas, 15 meters tall and with a weight of three tons, has been erected in 1999 in the city of Buenos Aires, at the conjunction of the "Libertador" and "Sarmiento" avenues.[32]

The aforementioned law that charged Rosas of high treason was abrogated in 1974.

A portrait of Rosas was included in 2010 in a gallery of Latin American patriots, held at the Casa Rosada. The gallery, which included works provided by the presidents of other Latin American countries, was held because of the 2010 Argentina Bicentennial.[33]

Portrait silver coin of Rosas, 1836

Silver and gold coins were struck during Rosas' tenure both with his portrait and without, but bearing his name. Portrait coins were issued in 1836 with a more youthful portrait and again in 1842 with a more mature portrait. Shown at right is a silver 8 soles (approx. 39 mm) coin from 1836.

See also

Footnotes

  1. ^ Spanish: Rosas, señor, ese tirano, ese bárbaro, así bárbaro 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, pondrá en duda, cuando menos, esa tiranía bárbara y execrable que Rosas ejerció entre nosotros. Es necesario, pues, marcar con una sanción legislativa declarándole reo de lesa patria para que siquiera quede marcado este punto en la historia, y se vea que el tribunal más potente, que es el tribunal popular, que es la voz del pueblo soberano por nosotros representado, lanza al monstruo el anatema llamándole traidor y reo de lesa patria... Juicios como éstos no deben dejarse a la historia... ¿Qué se dirá, qué se podrá 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 cañones tomados en acción de guerra, y saludado su pabellón sangriento y manchado con sangre inocente con la salva de 21 cañonazos?... Este hecho conocido en la historia, sería un gran contrapeso, señor, si dejamos a Rosas sin este fallo. La Francia misma, que inició la cruzada en que figuraba el general Lavalle, a su tiempo también lo abandonó, trató con Rosas y saludó su pabellón con 21 cañonazos... Yo pregunto, señor, si este hecho no borrará en la historia todo lo que podamos decir, si dejamos sin un fallo a este monstruo que nos ha diezmado por tantos años... 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 único que puede hacerle mal en la historia, porque de otro modo ha de ser dudosa siempre su tiranía y también sus crímenes... ¿Qué se dirá en la historia, señor?, y esto sí que es hasta triste decirlo, ¿qué se dirá en la historia cuando se diga que el valiente general Brown, el héroe de la marina en la guerra de la independencia, era el almirante que defendió los derechos de Rosas? ¿Qué se dirá en la historia sin este anatema, cuando se diga que este hombre que contribuyó con sus glorias y talentos a dar brillo a ese sol de Mayo, que el señor diputado recordaba en su discurso, cuando se diga que el general San Martín, el vencedor de los Andes, el padre de las glorias argentinas, le hizo el homenaje más grandioso que puede hacer un militar legándole su espada? ¿Se creerá esto, señor, si no lanzamos un anatema contra el tirano Rosas? ¿Se creerá dentro de 20 años o de 50, si se quiere ir más lejos, a ese hombre tal como es, cuando se sepa que Brown y San Martín le servían fieles y le rendían los homenajes más respetuosos a la par de la Francia y de la Inglaterra? No, señor: dirán, los salvajes unitarios, sus enemigos, mentían. 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... ¡Ojalá hubiéramos imitado al pueblo inglés que arrastró por las calles de Londres el cadáver de Cromwell, y hubiéramos arrastrado a Rosas por las calles de Buenos Aires!... Yo he de estar, señor Presidente, por el proyecto. Si el juicio de Rosas lo librásemos al fallo de la historia, no conseguiremos que Rosas sea condenado como tirano, y sí tal vez que fuese en ella el más grande y el más glorioso de los argentinos. Template:Lang-en

References

  1. ^ Smith, pp. 17–58
  2. ^ Smith, p. 78
  3. ^ Smith, p. 78-92
  4. ^ a b Crow
  5. ^ Chapter IV: Rio Negro To Bahía Blanca
  6. ^ Historical value of money converter
  7. ^ La Máquina Infernal Template:Es
  8. ^ Ruiz Moreno, pp. 561–577
  9. ^ Ruiz Moreno, pp. 577–595
  10. ^ Ruiz Moreno, pp. 595–650
  11. ^ Coles, R. J. (1981). Southampton's Historic Buildings. City of Southampton Society. p. 19. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  12. ^ "El regreso del Sable Libertador". La Gazeta Federal. Retrieved December 27, 2012.
  13. ^ "Rosas y San Martin". La Gazeta Federal. Retrieved December 27, 2012.
  14. ^ Johnson, p. 111
  15. ^ Rosa, José María. Historia Argentina, V. Buenos Aires. p. 491.
  16. ^ Johnson, pp. 111-112
  17. ^ Goebel, p. 29
  18. ^ a b c Goebel, p. 30
  19. ^ Johnson, p. 113
  20. ^ Goebel, p. 32
  21. ^ Goebel, p. 31
  22. ^ a b Goebel, p. 36
  23. ^ Rein, p. 75
  24. ^ Rein, p. 76
  25. ^ Devoto, pp. 278-281
  26. ^ a b Félix Luna, "Con Rosas o contra Rosas", pp. 5–7
  27. ^ Horacio González (November 23, 2010). "La batalla de Obligado" (in Spanish). Página 12. Retrieved June 27, 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
  28. ^ Lascano, pp. 46-47
  29. ^ H.Cámara de diputados de la Nación
  30. ^ Día de la soberanía nacional
  31. ^ Por decreto, el Gobierno incorporó nuevos feriados al calendario Template:Es
  32. ^ Emplazaron en Palermo una estatua de Juan Manuel de Rosas
  33. ^ Galería de los Patriotas Latinoamericanos abrió ante siete presidentes Template:Es

Bibliography

  • Ruiz Moreno, Isidoro J. (2006). Campañas Militares Argentinas II. Buenos Aires: Emece. ISBN 950-04-2794-X.
  • Centeno, Miguel Angel (2002). Blood and Debt: War and the Nation-State in Latin America. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 978-0-271-02306-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Devoto, Fernando (2009). Historia de la Historiografía Argentina (in Spanish). Buenos Aires: Sudamericana. ISBN 978-950-07-3076-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Edwards, Todd L. (2008). Argentina: a global studies handbook. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-85109-986-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Goebel, Michael (2011). Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. ISBN 9781846312380. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Hodge, Carl Cavanagh (2008). Encyclopedia of the Age of Imperialism, 1800–1914: A-K. Westport: Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-33406-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Johnson, Lyman (2004). Death, dismemberment, and memory: body politics in Latin America. United States: University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 0-8263-3200-5.
  • Lascano, Marcelo (2005). Imposturas históricas e identidad nacional (in Spanish). Buenos Aires: El Ateneo. ISBN 950-02-5900-1.
  • Lewis, Daniel K. (2003). The history of Argentina. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-7425-3739-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Lewis, Paul H. (2006). Authoritarian regimes in Latin America: dictators, despots, and tyrants. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Group. ISBN 978-0-7425-3739-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Lynch, John (2006). Argentine caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas. Lanham: SR books. ISBN 0-8420-2898-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Needell, Jeffrey D. (2006). The Party of Order: the Conservatives, the State, and Slavery in the Brazilian Monarchy, 1831–1871. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-5369-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • O'Donnell, Pacho (2008). Juan Manuel de Rosas: El maldito de la historia oficial. Buenos Aires: Grupo Editorial Norma. ISBN 978-987-545-555-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Reid, Michael (2007). Forgotten continent: the battle for Latin America's soul. Edmundsbury Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11616-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Rein, Mónica Esti (1998). Politics and Education in Argentina: 1946-1962. United States: M.E.Sharpe inc. ISBN 0-7656-0209-1.
  • Richard, J. M. (2010). The Link Persona. Durnham: Eloquent books. ISBN 978-1-60860-486-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Smith, Carlos (1936). Juan Manuel de Rosas ante la posteridad. Buenos Aires: Bernabé y Cía.
  • Félix Luna, Arturo Jauretche, Benjamín Villegas Basavilbaso, Jaime Gálvez, León Rebollo Paz, Fermín Chávez, José Antonio Ginzo, Luis Soler Cañas, Arturo Capdevilla, Julio Irazusta, Enrique de Gandia, Ernesto Palacio, Bernardo González Arrili, Emilio Ravignani, José Antonio Saldías, Arturo Orgaz, Manuel Gálvez, Diego Luis Molinari, Ricardo Font Ezcurra, Héctor Pedro Blomberg, Ramón Doll, Adolfo Mitre, Rafael Padilla Rorbón, Alberto Gerchunoff, Mariano Bosch, Ramón de Castro Ortega, Carlos Steffens Soler, Julio Donato Álvarez, Roberto de Laferrere, Justiniano de la Fuente, Federico Barbará, Ricardo Caballero (2010). Con Rosas o contra Rosas (in Spanish). Santa Fe: H. Garetto Editor. ISBN 978-987-1493-15-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Juan Manuel de Rosas.
Political offices
Preceded by Governor of Buenos Aires Province (Head of State of Argentina)
1829–1832 		Succeeded by
Preceded by Governor of Buenos Aires Province (Head of State of Argentina)
1835–1852 		Succeeded by

Template:Persondata

Template:Link GA

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas&oldid=537735026"