The Dichotomy of Power
Evaluating Juan Manuel de Rosas' Legacy in Argentine History
Juan Manuel de Rosas rose through the political and social ranks to become one of the most influential individuals in the history of Argentina. His tenure as governor of Buenos Aires marked the installation of conservative social and economic policies and the pursuit of national unity. Rosas' legacy, however, is subject to varying interpretations. In Rosas Continued the Authoritarian Colonial Tradition, Jose Luis Romero portrays Rosas as a power-driven authoritarian. In contrast, Miron Burgin's Rosas Assured the Continued Prosperity of the Pastoral Industries highlights Rosas' role in bolstering the crucial cattle industry and fostering connections between Buenos Aires and the rest of the nation.
Romero presents a nuanced view of Rosas, acknowledging his pivotal role in unifying and strengthening the state while critiquing his authoritarian methods. Highlighting Rosas' formation of the League of the Littoral as an example, Romero illustrates how Rosas consolidated a large country into a "controlled republic," simultaneously increasing his dominion over the caudillos and achieving a semblance of national unity that brought temporary satisfaction to the populace by quelling civil unrest and reverting to traditional ways. However, Romero also portrays the darker facets of Rosas' rule—his ascent to power through intimidation, execution of dissenters, and the demonization of those not fully aligned with him. Romero questions the necessity of Rosas' harsh tactics, suggesting that Rosas' era spurred a collective yearning for unity under a democratic constitutional framework. He posits that Rosas had the potential to fulfill his unifying agenda without resorting to violence and oppression.
Evaluating Juan Manuel de Rosas' legacy is complex, as perceptions of his rule vary widely. The shifting power dynamics under his governance caused some caudillos to lose influence, while others gained prominence by aligning with him. This divergence underscores the debate on whether Rosas' methods, often marked by violence and authoritarianism, were justified by his success in unifying Argentina. Even Sarmiento, a staunch adversary, acknowledged Rosas' impact on the nation's progress. Contemporary views might lean towards labeling Rosas as power-hungry, yet history suggests that nation-building often emerges from periods of turmoil and conflict.
Miron Burgin presents Juan Manuel de Rosas in a favorable light, portraying him as a pragmatic leader focused on Argentina's national strength. Historically reliant on cattle, Argentina saw a divide between Buenos Aires and its hinterlands before Rosas. Leveraging his connections within the ranching community, Rosas sought to bridge this gap, opening land to bolster exports. Burgin emphasizes Rosas' efforts to support the vital pastoral industry, critiquing the Unitaries for neglecting it. By ending the emphyteusis system and making pastoral lands more accessible, Rosas aimed to benefit the working class. Burgin challenges the notion of Rosas as solely an authoritarian, suggesting his policies were also geared towards economic improvement and national cohesion.
Burgin's portrayal of Juan Manuel de Rosas leans towards justifying the outcomes of his leadership despite the controversial means employed. He lauds Rosas for extending the Porteno column's influence and securing territories previously held by independent tribes, subtly bypassing the harsh realities of Rosas' Indian policies and their implications of extermination. This selective narrative celebrates Rosas' impact on the pastoral industry while glossing over his authoritarian methods and neglect of other economic sectors. This discrepancy highlights a contradiction within Burgin's analysis, as he acknowledges Rosas' oversight of various provincial economic aspects only in his conclusion, having previously minimized Rosas' authoritarian tendencies.
In contrast, Jose Luis Romero offers a broader, more critical perspective on Rosas, emphasizing the negative aspects of his rule. Romero's portrayal underscores the authoritarian and oppressive tactics Rosas employed to consolidate power, offering a stark contrast to Burgin's narrower focus on Rosas' contributions to the pastoral industry. This dichotomy between the two analyses reveals the complexity of Rosas' legacy, where one narrative underscores his role in unifying and strengthening Argentina at the expense of democratic principles and human rights, while the other highlights his economic achievements. Together, Romero and Burgin's contrasting viewpoints underscore the multifaceted nature of Rosas' governance, reflecting the enduring debate over his impact on Argentina.