THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY THE POLITICAL LEGACIES OF SIMON BOLIVAR AND BERNARDO O’HIGGINS MEGHAN RUSSELL Spring 2010 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for baccalaureate degrees in History and Spanish with honors in History Reviewed and approved* by the following Dr. K. Russell Lohse Assistant Professor of History Thesis Supervisor Dr. Catherine Wanner Associate Professor of History, Anthropology, and Religious Studies Honors Advisor *Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College i ABSTRACT This thesis will explain the political legacies of the South American liberators Simón Bolívar and Bernardo O’Higgins. It will provide an explanation of the lives of the two men and events in South America and Europe that led to the Spanish American independence movements, looking at Venezuela and Chile with more detail. Next it will describe the life of Bolívar and his influence on the Venezuelan independence movement, the formation of Venezuela’s governments and what Bolívar meant for Venezuela’s future. The following section will then describe the life of O’Higgins and his influence on the Chilean independence movement, the formation of Chile’s government and early constitutions and the impact O’Higgins had on Chile’s future. Finally it will conclude with a discussion of the differences and similarities between the actions of the two men and why Chile developed a more constitutionally minded governmental history while Venezuela was ruled by a series of military dictatorships. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………………………iii Introduction ...……………………………………………………………………………….. 1 Part 1: Simón Bolívar ...…………………………………………………………………….. 4 The Independence of Venezuela ……………………………………………………10 The First Republic ………………………………………………………………….11 The Second Republic ……………………………………………………………… 16 The Third Republic ………………………………………………………………... 21 The Bolivarian Legacy ……………………………………………………………. 35 Part II: Bernardo O’Higgins ………………………………………………………………. 37 The Independence of Chile ………………………………………………………... 39 The Patria Vieja …………………………………………………………………… 40 The Patria Nueva ………………………………………………………………….. 44 The Government of O’Higgins ……………………………………………………. 45 Chile After O’Higgins …………………………………………………………….. 62 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………… 70 Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………………. 75 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 South America 1800 – 30 ……………………………………………………….. 3 Figure 2.1 Simón Bolívar, 1825 ……………………………………………………………. 7 Figure 2.2 Spanish America: the Bolivarian theater ………………………………………..11 Figure 2.3 The “Campaña Admirable” of 1813 …………………………………………… 17 Figure 2.4 Ethnic composition of the Venezuelan population at independence …………... 21 Figure 3.1 Bernardo O’Higgins …………………………………………………………… 38 Figure 3.2 The crossing of the Andes ……………………………………………………... 45 Figure 3.3 Route of the Army of the Andes ………………………………………………. 47 Figure 3.4 20th century stamps of Bolivar ………………………………………………… 71 1 Introduction At the beginning of the 19th century Spain controlled the largest European empire; however, it was no longer was the most powerful in economic, political or military terms.1 The Spanish American elite had enjoyed a century of economic development and expansion – at the expense of the Spanish Crown. Therefore in the 18th century the Bourbon government in Spain had begun to enact the series of reforms aimed at improving the economic status of the Crown. However, coupled with the Napoleonic Revolution, these reforms instead triggered the Spanish American independence movements. In order to increase its revenue, the Spanish Crown imposed heavy taxes on its colonies in much the same way as the British did on their North American colonies. It extended monopolies over the tobacco and spirit industries and increased the sales tax percentage. The final Bourbon reform, the Consolidation Decree passed in 1804, required the transfer of charitable funds from the Americas to the Crown.2 These were reforms that affected members of all social classes and every level of production – from the peasants to the elite and from the farmers to the merchants. The more restrictive the reforms, the more resistance that mounted. There was a brief moment of improvement in the eyes of the Spanish American elite when the Bourbons decided to open their American colonies to international trade. The monopolistic control subsided a bit, tariffs were lowered and the colonies were no longer 1. David Bushnell, Simón Bolívar: Liberation and Disappointment (New York: Pearson Education, 2004), 17. 2. John Lynch, Latin America Between Colony and Nation (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 75-76. 2 forced to trade with only Cádiz and Seville but could now trade with each other as well.3 However, the colonists soon realized that what they perceived as freedom actually meant that they were now unprotected from the industries of foreign powers such as France, Great Britain and the United States. Nevertheless, while the industries suffered from foreign competition, the agricultural sector thrived with the new trading partners and consistently challenged the Crown for less regulation and more consumer outlets. The opening up of Spanish American ports further undermined Spanish authority in America and weakened the royal government. It set a precedent for increasing freedoms in the colonies that could not be reversed, especially considering the contemporary events of the U.S. and Haitian Revolutions. Venezuela was a large and important agricultural colony for Spain, however until the 1730s it was largely overlooked by the Spanish Crown. During this time period the large landholders – mainly cacao producers – created a regional elite ruling class that had a monopoly on the market. Popular unrest and rebellion surrounding this monopoly in 1749 caused the royal government to pay even more attention to Venezuela. The Crown increased taxation and installed a series of military governors in Caracas.4 These became a main point of contention between the Venezuelan merchants and the Spanish government. In contrast, the Captaincy-General of Chile was one of the most isolated areas of Spanish America and had very little conflict with the Crown before 1810.5 It was a geographically compact and socially homogenous region that experienced very few regional, 3. Ibid., 76-77; Sergio R Villalobos, Breve historia de Chile (Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria, 2008), 90. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are my own. 4. Lynch, Latin America, 78,79, 83. 5. Simon Collier, Ideas and Politics of Chilean Independence, 1808-1833 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 13. 3 social or racial divisions. While the elites in Caracas were trying to expand their trading abilities and challenging the Spanish Crown, the elites in Santiago were more content “only to be good Catholics and good Spaniards ‘qualities which they regarded as inseparable and 6 as the two poles of their happiness.’” Spanish America 1800 – 30 Source: Lynch, John. Simón Bolívar: A Life. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006): xiv. This all changed, however, following the defeat of Fernando VII of Spain in 1810 by Napoleon. The members of the Venezuelan elite, who had found the greatest amount of fault in the Spanish government, finally had an opportunity to gain more rights and begin an attempt at self-government. Venezuela began the movement in the Spanish colonies to 6. Ibid., 7, 13. 4 create governmental juntas. Chile followed the rest of Spanish America in establishing a local governmental junta in the absence of Fernando VII.7 Although over the coming years Chilean elites would develop a sense of autonomy and a list of grievances against the Spanish Crown, in 1810 the Captaincy-General was not yet thinking of rebellion.8 Two important leaders who emerged from these preliminary governmental juntas were Simón Bolívar in Venezuela and Bernardo O’Higgins in Chile. Both men were forward thinking for their time and strove to turn their homelands into sovereign, independent, republics. They led both the political and military movements in their countries and eventually achieved independence and ruled the countries they liberated. However, their intentions did not always play out in reality as they had originally planned and both were eventually forced into exile. Bolívar’s failures stemmed from his intense ambition to liberate all of Spanish America, therefore losing control of Colombia to federalists and Venezuela to military caudillos. O’Higgins, on the contrary, was too controlling and caused backlash against his government by the Chilean elite. Eventually though, Chile would return to the orderly constitutions that O’Higgins had in mind while Venezuela continued on its path of military dictatorships. While studying the political views of Bolívar and O’Higgins, as well as their contemporaries, it is important not to impose on them modern-day political standards. Both Bolívar and O’Higgins strove to implement republican governments in their respective countries. For these two men, republican generally meant representative.9 They saw a republic as a governmental structure that would best allow for the expression of the will of 7. Ibid., 16. 8. Lynch, Latin America, 16. 9. Collier, Chilean Independence, 146. 5 the people, a principle that both held as essential to a successful government. Bolívar believed that only through a republic would freedom, equality, and the sovereignty of the people be secure.10 In Chile, republicanism was seen as