Ser Argentino. All about Argentina

Defeat

Argentina was the protagonist of fierce civil wars. In 1814.20 and 27, successively the federal and unitary pacts took shape. How much is there really in the cross accusations?

 Juan Manuel de Rosas  came to power thanks to an alliance between different regions of the country that needed to limit the excesses of Buenos Aires. The need for a port and the increase in taxes charged for access to the  Rio de la Plata , were marked by injustice.

Now, as often happens,  the remedy was worse than the disease . The righteous claims of the interior were lost in the unlimited omnipresence of  federal forces . Like an octopus, Rosas police were able to reach anywhere where an offence was committed against the  Holy Federation .

After long waiting, the day came. The plenipotentiary governor of  Buenos Aires  and his  regional agreement  with the warlords of Buenos Aires  Catamarca ,  La Rioja ,  Jujuy ,  Mendoza ,  San Juan ,  St. Louis ,  Salta  and  Tucumán  ,  he was in danger of dissolving .

As the Buenos Aires intelligentsia had predicted,  Rosas  would be defeated on the battlefield, precisely in the lands of the Caseros family, located in the province of  Buenos Aires . The event took place on February 3, 1852.

 Jus to José de Urquiza   led the so-called Big Army  , formed by an alliance between  Brazil ,  Uruguay and the provinces of  Between Rios ,  Santa Fe and  Corrientes  .

 Caseros  went ahead fighting rifle against rifle and counting death by death. However, it was the strategies of the   unitarians  that eventually led them to victory. Rosas, defeated, angry and already without power, impetuously collided the weapons of his soldiers with those of the men of Urquiza, showing his line: that of the   federal warlords . But nothing was enough. His cause was already a lost illusion. The  Holy   Federation  had made so many mistakes when it came to stand, that the  exiled unitarians  ended up defining Rosas as the “ Caligula del Plata ” ( Sunday Faustino Sarmiento,  statement to  the newspaper El Mercurio , Chile, March 3, 1848).

  Bartolomé Mitre  , in his role as a journalist, did not hesitate to accuse Rosas of having used public money for his benefit. On the other hand, in his “ History of Belgrano and Argentina's Independence”,  as well as in the “History of San Martín”,  leaves a lot of dark spots. It happens that Mitre himself was one of the organizers of the   Large Army  . A lot of intellectuals fought in that war. Florencio Varela,  Domingo Faustino Sarmiento  and Rivera Indarte, author of “ Tablas de Sangre” .

 “ The victims' heads are placed on the public market adorned with celestial ribbons,”  wrote Rivera Indarte, showing one of the wildest aspects of the Rosas government (“ Tablas de Sangre  ”, Library Authors Argentinos, Antonio Dos Santos -Editor-, Buenos Aires 1946). It is also true that Casa Lafone, according to an allegation by Emile Girardine in 1848, was the one that financed José Rivera Indarte's work in order to use it as propaganda.  This British company had great interests in Montevideo . If Girardine's complaint was true, the work was being financed by one of the virtual owners of the Uruguayan capital,  where Bartolomé Mitre was organizing his army .

On the other hand, it is highly suggestive that the same Englishmen who helped to overthrow the  Holy Federation gave asylum in  London  nothing less than Juan Manuel de Rosas.  To what extent were spurious agreements able to shape our past?  

The clashes of those days were very fierce. The actions of its protagonists took directions difficult to explain. Their struggles and controversies were so sophisticated, that to this day there are those who are careful in referring to  the crimes committed by both sides.  Wouldn't it be that those infamous acts ended up hiding in the blindness of our most intimate fears? Possibly, like the sins of youth, like family secrets,  were   hidden in those irreconcilable arguments that usually separate people forever  . In these extreme cases, reality ends up being subjective.

Rating: 0/5.