Research Assignment

Research Assignment- Caudillo versus the Nation State

Source 1: Juan Manuel de Rosas: Authoritarian Caudillo and Primitive Populist by Jeffrey M. Shumway

In Juan Manuel de Rosas: Authoritarian Caudillo and Primitive Populist, Jeffrey M. Shumway, explores the two opposing factors that maintained the power of Juan Manuel de Rosas’s rule: violent control and cultural association. Rosas’s number one goal was to restore order and stability to Argentina, which he saw as a state of anarchy due to the Unitarians.

On the violent side of his rule, to gain authoritative control Rosas did not tolerate any form of opposition. Those who spoke against his will were tracked down by assassins and brutally murdered. The most common form of violent murder that took place was the butcher-like slitting of throats, inspiration for Echeverria’s metaphor of “The Slaughterhouse.” Other torturous killings included “waistcoating,” which Shumway describes as sewing up the victim in a rawhide and leaving them out on the plains to die. It is hard to believe that someone who induced so much hatred and terror could remain in power, however Rosas’s tactics to gain a following created just as strong feelings of love and loyalty.

Shumway explains how, in this light, Rosas gained cultural associations through conforming himself to the lifestyles and interests of different sub groups.

Rosas believed that the key to maintaining order was to control the lower class, and allow them some form of voice. He understood this to be because in times of civil unrest the rich and powerful are inherently blamed by those who have less. In order to avoid this disdain he appropriated himself to the lifestyles and interests of groups such as the Afro-Argentinos, the rural population, and the Indigenous communities. Rosas reached out and communicated to these groups, offering them jobs and benefits within his law.

He strongly identified with the rural population because of his wealthy rancher status, and adopted gaucho dress and habits. For instance he would subject himself to his own punishments such as getting lashes for forgetting to bring his lasso to the fields. Gauchos, who placed a strong moral emphasis on equality and dignity, empathized with this. Rosas would even dine and converse with the gaucho men as well as indigenous communities. He spoke some of the indigenous languages, and formed personal relationships with some of the chiefs.

Shumway concludes his article with a very interesting modern debate over whether or not to rename part of Sarmiento street in Buenos Aires after Juan Manuel de Rosas. This surfaces the important debate of whether or not Rosas, along with other caudillos, should be recognized for any good that they did despite their violent tactics.

It seems there still exists a large divide between calling Rosas a “tyrant” or “hero.” A more modern, diplomatic school of thought called La nueva escuela histórica paints caudillos as neither black nor white, but as complex figures. It is interesting when retelling history what is told and what is left out, because if caudillos were only recounted by their followers, or only recounted by their opposition, they would not even seem possibly embodied in the same figure.

Source 2: Making Sense of Caudillos and “Revolutions” in Nineteenth century Latin America by John Charles Chasteen

Making Sense of Caudillos and “Revolutions in Nineteenth century Latin America by John Charles Chasteen was a good general look at Caudillos, and how the term can have different implications depending on the location and time period. Chasteen defines caudillo as: “a man with a personal following largely independent of any institutional leadership role.” Caudillos were mostly military men, but they varied in background status. For example, Juan Manuel de Rosas of Argentina was a powerful, wealthy landowner before his political rise, whereas Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna of Mexico gained his fortune and status after his political rise.

Caudillos formed a tiered society in which they existed at the top. Directly beneath them were their powerful supporters, then the followers of these powerful supporters, and then the working class. It doesn’t seem that race was necessarily a determinant of where individuals rested on the tier because caudillos varied in ethnic background. Central America was dominated by a liberal white Creole caudillo, and conservative mestizo caudillo. In Venezuela Jose Antonio Paez shared African descent. Chasteen explains the main overarching factor was that they were individuals who “had a talent for gaining other people’s confidence and loyalty.” It was a time dominated by patronage, or competition of social networks.

The “revolutions” that occurred during the nineteenth century were a matter of physical, often violent involvements of what was considered political participation. I found it interesting that not many of these revolutions instilled social change or progression, but instead was part of a cycle of elites abusing power, and being taken over by those who aspire to take their place. How a caudillo displayed and proved himself during a revolution was key in whether or not he would win over the affection of the people. He must parade himself through the cities and countryside gaining a following, and in battle he must fight with a commanding physical presence. His resulting fate was typically either to be forced into exile, or to be put into office. If a caudillo gained office, he would start by providing benefits that would trickle down the social tier that he had created. Powerful supporters would directly gain some of the wealth of office, and then in turn pass wealth down to their followers, who would pass it on to their own etc.

Chasteen explains that this form of revolution was a constant threat, a political cycle that was so predominant it formed the political process. Brazil is one exception to this general rule because of the size and diversity had less political revolutions and violence. With less incentive and a lack of firearms, the death tolls in Brazil were much lower.

The rest of the article was a series of documents, most of them autobiographical writings of caudillos themselves from different countries. One thing that surprised me was that caudillos tended to express emotional sensitivity as well as tendency towards self-sacrifice. I think this is what made them more likable, relatable characters to many.