Independence and Consolidation
Simon Bolivar was born in 1783 to a wealthy and privileged Spanish American family. Bolivar spoke for the colonial elites and played an important role in denouncing the oppressive rule of the Spanish (Kinsbruner, 2). In the short time that Simon Bolivar lived in this world, he managed to live a comprehensive life. He is a person that has entered the historical books as a revolutionary that played a very important role in liberating Latin America from the oppressive Spanish rule. Simon Bolivar played a part in the liberation of six nations through intellectual arguments that resonated greatly with many of the Latin American Community (Rodriguez, 14). Bolivar was determined in this course and fought a war of constant violence. Through his intellectual arguments, Bolivar inspired people to detest the Spanish rule and also become devoted in the fight against the rule. Many of the Latin Americans were inspired by his mission and arguments, and wanted him to be their leader but some of them branded him as a traitor and wanted to assassinate him as a result. Today the power of his writings and arguments still continue to be studied greatly and the impact of his struggles for liberation continue to resonate greatly with the Latin American community. Today he has a country named after him, Bolivia, a city and currency also named after him. Throughout the American community he has been honored with a number of statues in the streets while his life is a subject of countless piece of literature. To a number of people, Bolivar was a fighter of tyranny while to others he was a revolutionary championing the bourgeois agenda (Rodriguez, 14). The impact of Bolivar in Latin America is immense and virtually unfathomable without him. Bolivar intervened in nearly all parts of the revolution, its many phases and the many locations it took place. Although Bolivar played an important part in the Latin American independence, he was also a complex man. Though seen as a liberator, he shunned liberalism, was a soldier that did not believe in militarism and was a republican that greatly admired the monarch system of governance (Kinsbruner, 1).
Message to Congress of Angostura
Bolivar’s message to the Congress of Angostura highlights not only his interpretation of the impact of European colonial era but also outlines his plans to repair the damage caused by the Spanish colonial past and his future for Latin America. Bolivar’s message to the congress was a way of him communicating his ideas and ideals and also to point out that the shortcomings of the Spanish rule were deeply rooted in its Americas colonization. The first issue addressed by Bolivar to the congress is the fact that he believed that there should not be a hierarchy based on race within the Latin American Community. This was an issue that was very important to Bolivar as he wanted to eliminate the current system that was strongly based on group privileges and duties (fueros). In the address Bolivar stated that “we are not Europeans, we are not Indians, we are but a mixed species of aborigines and Spaniard” (Bolivar, 18). It is clear from that statement that Bolivar wanted to eliminate the notion of racial superiority that was prevalent at the time due to colonialism. The colonial system, as viewed by Bolivar, had created a racial hierarchical system that placed the Spaniards born in Spain (Pennisulares) at the top of the hierarchy and the Spanish born in the Americas (Criollos) at the bottom. The Criollos received little benefits compared to the Pennisulares and were not seen as being truly Spanish. Also, the Criollos were not deemed fit to rule the Americas given the fact that most public holdings for the Criollos during that time were on a declining state around Bolivar’s time. The native and Spanish mixed ancestry (Mestizo), native Latin Americans, the slaves and the free Africans were way lower in the hierarchy. Bolivar, at this point, envisioned a Latin American future with racial equality, a view that was shared with many other Latin American revolutionaries such as Jose Gaspar Rodriguez. Bolivar greatly believed that racial equality was the beginning of liberation and exercised this equality in his own army that comprised all races of the Latin America. Bolivar promoted his soldiers based on merit rather than race such as the example of Jose Silva who quickly rose among ranks although he was of African and European descent.
Bolivar’s address also covered on the paternalism evil and the consequences of the oppressive colonial rule. He takes not of the fact that the current regime’s authorized power new no limits. A despot could exploit the law to advance his own oppressive agenda without any consequences in law. He noted that the colonial rule had established control over all functions including political, military, civil and religious. He also stated that by the very fact that they received everything from Spain, this has denied them the pleasure of exercising active rule. This, he noted, was fueled by the fact that they were given no role in their internal administration and domestic affairs. He further states that by depriving them of this right, the colonial rule made it impossible for them to understand the very operation of public affairs. He argues that the colonial rule kept them apart from everything that was related from to the science of governance and hence they were unable to understand how the government works. Through paternalism and the colonial rule, Bolivar argues that they never truly experiences knowledge, virtue or power. As a result, the Americas followed destructive examples rather than follow examples that would ensure their success. He criticizes the deceitful governance that they had been subjected and the oppressive form of governance. As a result, most of the Latin-Americans had become ignorant which was a clear path to their destruction. Bolivar notes that the rule of law is more powerful that tyranny, a fact that had never been revealed to the Americas. Consequently, Bolivar argued that it was time the Latin Americans practiced virtue, shun tyranny and embraced the rule of law.
In the address, Bolivar also weighs in on government, the current form of governance and his ideas on the ideal form of government for Latin America. Bolivar starts by heavily criticizing the Federal System that was being implemented at the time in the United States of America. In his view, the Federal System of governance was similar to the form of governance that had been implemented in the Spanish colonies where absolute power rested in the central government but then spread downwards to the smaller localities (the Viceroyalties). The system had already its problems and seemed not to work in the Spanish colonies. Even though the Federal System had political, religious and civil liberties, Bolivar takes note of the fact that the United States of America and Latin America were different and the fact that what worked in USA was not working for the Americas. Bolivars also takes note of the fact that North America had superior liberties as compared to South America and hence trying to copy North America’s rules would be disastrous for their progress and freedom as they were not used to such liberties. Bolivar continues his criticism by stating “Although the United States is a singular model of political and moral value, the nation is unique in the history of the human race” (Bolivar, 21). He argues that even though the federalism had proven to be an effective form of government for North America, he could not fathom how it could work for Latin America since the two states were diametrically different. By taking note of how difficult it would be to apply Spain England’s Charter of Liberties to Latin America, Bolivar could not see it being possible to adapt the North American rules in Venezuela (Bolivar, 21). Bolivar explained that Spirit of Laws state that laws must be fashioned to suit the country for which they were written for and hence federalism worked well for North America. Bolivar argued that it would be an astonishing coincidence is the laws of one nation became applicable to another as countries have different issues and problems. He argued that in developing laws many aspects have to be taken into account such as the way of life of people, the physical aspect of the country, the climate, religion and many aspects before adopting laws. As such, he encouraged the congress to consult such as code before even thinking of adopting the American federalism form of governance (Simon, 8).
Bolivar further continues his criticism of the North American government by indicating that he did not approve of how the United States forms a Republic. He did not believe in the idea of voting in government representatives and believed in a hereditary senate which he believed would make the senators become more involved in the livelihoods of people. Bolivar believed that a hereditary senate should resemble the British House of Lords. Bolivar stated “It would require no alteration in our basic laws to adopt a legislation similar to the British Parliament” (Bolivar, 28). Bolivar believed that by having a hereditary senate rather than an elective one, the senate would become the soul, base and bond for the nation. Coming from a man that believed in meritocracy on the battlefield and equality, Bolivar’s belief in a hereditary senate greatly contradicts his beliefs. Bolivar, in trying to explain his stance, stated that he did not a new aristocratic system similar to what had previously been imposed upon the Pennisulares but wanted the would-be representatives to be knowledgeable enough before they assumed office. He stated clearly that he did not wish to establish a noble class but rather he noted that such leadership demanded great knowledge. Bolivar further argued against elections by stating “All should not leave everything to chance and to the results of the elections” (Bolivar, 29). He argues that by allowing knowledgeable decision-makers, who have been known since their birth, to assume office, the country will be better represented as they would not be easily swayed by the populist opinion. Additionally, Bolivar argues that he favors an executive branch that has an ability to wage war in as long as it is within the realms of the constitution. He believed that the constitution will check an individual’s behavior and actions, and hence prevent him or her from any wrong-doing.
Bolivar argues that the future governance of Latin-America is a democratic form of government. He noted that a well-planned democracy held the future of a prosperous Latin-America rather than a poorly-planned democracy. Bolivar argues that a poorly planned democracy was weak and the most likely to lead to an anarchical society. Bolivar stated that many ancient and modern nations managed to shake of oppression from colonial masters but they have failed to enjoy the fruits of their newly found freedom due to weak forms of governance. Bolivar argued that only democracy was the key to absolute freedom. Even though he supported a democratic form of government, he expressed his reservation that a poorly formed democratic government would not last at all as it may be faced with a number of challenges. He posed the challenge that the ancient governments rode on monarchies and aristocracies but yet they thrived for years and hence without a clear form of democracy, the system was most likely to fail (Simon, 4).
Bolivar also expressed his view on the foundations of a republic by stating that popular education should be an issue of great concern for the congress. He argued that enlightenment and morality are two qualities that make a republic and hence the need of them being their first priority. He refers to the ancient governments such as Athens and Rome that had established institutions to check the behavior and actions of its people. As a result, he argued that the idea of being free and strong was not enough and hence the need of people being virtuous. He also addressed the fact that education had played an important role in the earlier civilizations and hence the need for Latin Americans to be educated. By advocating for education, Bolivar knew that an enlightened people would be key to strong, free and thriving nation. Education, as he stated in the address, was meant to purify the corrupted minds of the people and also denouncing all evil deeds that were major impediments to the progress of the nation. With regard to a republican president, he stated that it should be an individual who has been isolated by the society and was to be in charge of the legislative body, senate and the people.
The Jamaica Letter
Simon Bolivar’s Jamaica letter is gives an insight on a particular period of the Latin-American history. Bolivar wrote the letter on September 6, 1815 right after the Peninsular War. Bolivar wrote the letter while in Jamaica where he was on a self-imposed exile after facing defeat from the Spanish forces in Caracas. The letter was addressed to an English gentleman believed to be the Jamaican Governor, the Duke of Manchester. The letter was written as a response from the Englishman’s request on Bolivar’s views on the beginning and the prospect of the movement of liberation. In the letter, Bolivar summarizes his political and philosophical ideals and ideas for Latin America. In the beginning, Bolivar addresses the issue of great diversity in Latin America (Kinsbruner, 7). Bolivar’s ideal involved rallying towards a unified Latin America but he soon realized that it was impractical. Bolivar indicates that Latin America is too diverse to be united under a single nation without having a single thing tying each one of them together. Bolivar takes note of the fact that even though all the states in Latin America had a common language, origin, cultures and origins, it is separated by issues such as climatic differences, conflicting interests, greater geographical diversity among other issues that differentiate them. He states “America is separated by geographical differences, climatic differences, dissimilar characteristics and conflicting interests” (Bolivar, 2). In Bolivar’s view, it was practically impossible to have a United Latin America given this great diversity. He recognizes how impossible it was to maintain a large geographical state of such nature and gives the examples of the smaller countries that had forged successful governments and systems. Bolivar spends much time talking about the issue of a Latin American identity in the letter. Even though he noted that it would be impossible to have a unified Latin America, he argues that there was still a way by which there could be a unique identity of the Latin America. Bolivar views Latin America as a small universe that can be generally categorized as new people that were different from Spain but also contained native populations.
Bolivar is highly critical of the colonial system that was not only oppressive but had denied them true knowledge, virtue and power. He heavily criticizes the conduct of the Spanish from the time they arrived in the continent. Bolivar referrers to the story of Bishop Bartolome de las Casas who had a first-hand experience horrors in the hands of the Spanish. In outlining his economic and political logic behind the liberation of Latin America from Spain, Bolivar first states the fact that they had for long been deprived their ability to govern themselves. He also states that they had been denied the chance to hold positions of authority due to marginalization. Bolivar argues that those people that were born in America (Criollos) were only allowed to hold subordinate positions that had no royal privileges. This was in sharp contrast to the Peninsulares that enjoyed better terms and privileges. He took note of the fact that this grave inequality had a huge role to play in the lack of economic development in the Spanish colony. The prohibitions that were set by Spain were also a major factor for independence from Spain. As he explains in the letter, the prohibitions limited the opportunities for trade within the colony and hence most of the goods and services had to be purchased from the Peninsulares. The prohibitions, as he further explained, also limited their ability to conduct business transactions with other colonies or countries. Bolivar writes that there were barriers all over to prevent any “trade exchanges, traffic or understanding” (Bolivar, 4). Bolivar lamented that what had been left of them was practicing agriculture and hunting wild game, and hence no progress at all for the Latin Americans. Further, Bolivar argues that through colonization, they were completely “cut-off and removed from the world in relation to the science of public affairs” and thus they never knew how a government was run (Bolivar, 4).
One of the other issues that Bolivar addressed in the letter was the need for Europe to aid the Americas in their quest for independence. In his plea, Bolivar not only states the need for the Americas to gain independence but also cites the need for Europe to conduct trade with the Americas for mutual benefit. Bolivar tried to appease the European nations by indicating that by helping the Americas in their independence, it was a means by which “Europe can acquire overseas commercial establishments” (Bolivar, 4). The independence of the Americas was seen as opening a new market for the European nations and hence the need of them joining in their fight. Bolivar categorically states that his plea is for help in their independence quest and not an opportunity for another country to come in and advance their imperialist agendas. Bolivar wrote that it was his belief that the civilized countries would come to their aid and thereafter achieve something that would be beneficial to the different regions.
In the end, Bolivar considers the possible government systems that would favor the Latin Americas. Bolivar is seen as a very strong proponent of a Republican system which he deemed best to replace the King’s authority. Additionally, it can be seen that he preferred the central system to the federal system (Simon, 12). Even though autonomy and freedom were the ideals that were being championed for, Bolivar held the notion that Latin America was still young and experienced and thus needed a system of government that would work rather than one that would give rise to an anarchical state.
Conclusion
El Liberator (The Liberator) as he was commonly known, Simon Bolivar had dream of a unified Latin America in a fashion similar to the United States of America and the European Union. He greatly denounced the tyranny of the Spanish rule, servitude of the Spanish Americans and the prohibitions against trade. Citing political thinkers such as Rousseau and Montesquieu, Bolivar believed that a political system was the way to ending the oppressive rule. Aware of the difficulties present, he favored a Republican government with strong emphasis on the public good rather than individual good. In as much as he contradicted himself in his ideas, Bolivar knew that the best way to end the oppressive rule was by the Latin Americans reclaiming their power, their virtues and through education. Even though his vision of a unified Latin America never materialized, the impact that he left in South America is immense given the high regard he is still being held in among the Latin American nations.
Works Cited
Bolívar, Simón, Vicente Lecuna, and Harold A. Bierck. Selected Writings of Bolivar. New York: Colonial Press, 1951. Print.
Kinsbruner, Jay. Independence in Spanish America: Civil Wars, Revolutions, and Underdevelopment. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1994. Internet resource.
Rodríguez, Víctor M. Hispanic American Leadership: A Concise Reference Guide. , 2015. Internet resource.
Simon, Joshua D. The Ideology of Creole Revolution: Ideas of American Independence in Comparative Perspective. , 2012. Print.
Simon, J. "Simón Bolívar's Republican Imperialism: Another Ideology of American Revolution." History of Political Thought. 33.2 (2012): 280-304. Print.
