CHAPTER XIV

ARGENTINA-THE MAKING OF A NATION

N the fifty-year period extending from 1775 to 1825, there occurred three of the greatest revolutions in the world's history-the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the revolt of the Spanish-American colonies. The revolution of the thirteen North American colonies against British control brought into existence a new system of government based on principles which have now come to dominate practically the whole earth; the French Revolution established similar principles in the Old World, and foreshadowed the end of dynastic absolutism; the revolt of the Spanish-American colonies separated once for all the New World from the Old, and sounded the knell of empires built upon colonial exploitation. It is difficult to say just how much effect the American and French revolutions had upon the colonies of Spanish America, but no territorial limits could contain the democratic impulse born of such travail, and Spanish America speedily gave evidence of the potential influence of the new movement.

Francisco de Miranda, of Venezuela, first felt its power, and, answering its call, served in both the American and French armies of freedom. But this service was only a prelude to his real purpose, which was nothing less than to bring about a complete separation of his own country from the control of Spain. He tried to interest various governments in his schemes, and in 1798 it seemed quite possible that the United States would join with Great Britain in an attempt to foment revolutions in the Spanish colonies in the New World. Rufus King, the American

minister at London, enthusiastically supported the plan, and succeeded in obtaining the backing of Hamilton.1 Neither the British cabinet nor Secretary Pickering, however, was willing to countenance the project, and Miranda finally gave up hopes of obtaining the support of Great Britain. He thereupon visited the United States and tried to obtain help from Jefferson and Madison; but, although both personally wished him well, they were unwilling to engage the United States in an enterprise of such a nature. He was forced to content himself with organizing a small filibustering expedition in New York, without aid, but also without interference, from the United States government. This expedition, which set sail early in 1806, was a complete failure, as were Miranda's later attempts; but he deserves credit for being the first great leader in the struggle for Spanish-American independence.2

The real fight for independence may be said to have begun on May 25, 1810, when Buenos Aires deposed its viceroy and set up a junta gubernativa. Quito, in New Granada, had made a similar attempt the previous year, but this movement had been quickly suppressed. Valparaiso, Santiago, and Bogotá followed in quick succession, and on July 5, 1811, the congress of Venezuela adopted the first declaration of independence from Spain. These revolutionary movements did not pass unnoticed in the United States, and in June, 1810, Joel R. Poinsett was appointed "agent for seamen and commerce" in Buenos Aires. His instructions show a keen appreciation on the part of the government of the United States of the possibilities of the situa

3

'C. R. King, The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King (N. Y., 1907), Vol. II, p. 250 ff.

For a complete account of Miranda's efforts see W. S. Robertson, Rise of Spanish-American Republics (N. Y., 1918), pp. 26-72; also "Francisco de Miranda and the Revolutionizing of Spanish America," by the same writer, in the Annual Report of the American Historical Assoc., 1907, Vol. I, pp. 189

539.

For an excellent survey of the early diplomatic relations between the United States and Venezuela see W. S. Robertson, Essays in American History (N. Y., 1910), pp. 231-267.

tion: "As a crisis is approaching which must produce great changes in the situation of Spanish America, and may dissolve altogether its colonial relations to Europe; and as the geographical position of the United States and other obvious considerations give them an intimate interest in whatever may affect the destiny of that part of the American continent, it is our duty to turn our attention to this important subject, and to take such steps not incompatible with the neutral character and honest policy of the United States, as the occasion renders proper. . . . You will make it your object, whenever it may be proper, to diffuse the impression that the United States cherish the sincerest good will towards the people of South America as neighbors, as belonging to the same portion of the globe, and as having a mutual interest in cultivating friendly intercourse; that this disposition will exist whatever may be their internal system on European relations, with respect to which no interference of any sort is pretended; and that in the event of a political separation from the parent country and of the establishment of an independent system of national government, it will coincide with the sentiments and policy of the United States to promote the most friendly relations and the most liberal intercourse between the inhabitants of this hemisphere, as having all a common interest, and as lying under a common obligation to maintain that system of peace, justice, and good will which is the only source of happiness for nations." 1

In the following year Poinsett was made consul-general and proceeded to Chile, a vice-consul taking over the duties at Buenos Aires and the ports on the River Plate. Similar representation was provided for at about the same time at Caracas, Venezuela. In spite of the fact that these were regularly accredited agents, there seems to have been no intention on the part of the United States to recognize the

House Report No. 72, 20th Cong., 2nd sess.: also cited in F. L. Paxson, The Independence of the South American Republics (Phil., 1916), p. 110.