The Emancipation of South America

by Bartolomé Mitre

The Patriot party soon became divided into two factions. The Radicals, who aimed at independence, were headed by Rozas, and had in their front line the Argentine residents. The death of the Count de la Conquista in February, 1811, left Rozas at the head of affairs, but his power was more apparent than real. Against him, at the head of the Moderate party, was ranged the Cabildo, sustained by the Creole aristocracy, whose timid temporising policy almost placed them in line with the party of reaction. The Royalist, called the Goth or Saracen party, recognized the leadership of the Audiencia, accused Rozas of personal ambition and even of aspiring to the crown. Rozas had no such ambition and lacked even the spontaneous courage of the man of action. Through all this opposition he carried on his plan of reform, of which freedom of commerce was the most important feature. This was proclaimed in February, 1811, with the result that in a few months the revenue was doubled and was soon after quadrupled. He also raised troops and summoned a general Congress of Deputies from the Provinces, whose election was based upon the limitations established by municipal precedent.

The 1st April was the day appointed for the elections. That same day a part of the garrison of Santiago mutinied under Colonel Figueroa, who was a friend of Rozas. At first the daring Royalist was successful, and occupied the Plaza, placing himself under the orders of the Audiencia, who however, declined all responsibility. Rozas, who alone of his colleagues preserved his presence of mind, ordered the rest of the troops to march against the mutineers. The two forces met in the Plaza and opened fire on each other simultaneously, at close quarters. The affair soon ended in favour of the Patriots, young Manuel Dorrego, of Buenos Ayres, at that time a student of the University, particularly distinguishing himself in the fight.

Figueroa took refuge in a convent, where he was captured by Rozas at the head of a party of citizens, was tried that same night, sentenced to death “as a traitor to his country and the government,” and was shot the next morning at four o’clock. The bodies of five of the mutineers who had been killed, were hung on a gallows in the Plaza on the afternoon of the 1st, and next day proclamation was made that all who conspired against the State would be similarly punished.

Immediately afterwards the Audiencia was dissolved, and with it disappeared the last semblance of monarchical authority in Chile.

Meantime the elections passed off quietly in the rest of the country. In the Centre the Creole oligarchy triumphed, the great proprietors being elected by their tenants without opposition; but in the South and in some of the northern districts, the Radicals were successful.

Following the example of Buenos Ayres, the Deputies were incorporated with the executive, in spite of the just protest of the Cabildo, which revenged itself by procuring the election of twelve deputies for the capital in place of the six it ought to have had according to the electoral census.

On the 6th May the interrupted election took place in Santiago. The candidates of Rozas being defeated from this day his power waned.

Congress met on the 4th July. Out of forty members Rozas could only count upon thirteen votes. On the same day the Junta resigned, and the “High Congress” assumed the executive power. Rozas in an eloquent speech gave a sketch of his policy, which he recommended for their adoption, and was listened to with deep attention by the whole Assembly; for the moment all the discordant opinions vibrated in harmony.

It is an interesting question whether this early establishment of the Parliamentary system was of benefit or was an evil to Chile. The Chilian historian, Vicuña Mackenna, considers it premature. He says, “the dictatorship of a Cæsar rather than that of a Cicero” would have been preferable for a people without constitutional education. Gervinus thinks that it assured to Chile, later on, that tranquillity so wanting in the other republics of South America. Lastarria, more philosophical than either, observes that the establishment of the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, even under such restrictions as placed them in the hands of a few only, was the true way to weaken colonial prejudices and to arouse the idea of the dignity of man. The fact is that it was the natural outcome of the feudal character of Chilian society. In the Parliamentary drama the people played the part of the Greek chorus, which repeated the words of the principal actor. Chile soon remedied the error, copied from Buenos Ayres, of incorporating Congress with the Executive, which shows the existence of a hidden force neutralising the effect of an evil example.

The revolutions of Holland and the United States had shown the world that a regulating Congress was compatible with a dictatorship; and even in South America it was seen later on that no dictatorship, however powerful, could disregard the will of the people from whom its authority was derived. In Chile less than in any other colony was this possible; nevertheless it is certain that Rozas convened this Congress in obedience to a solemn promise exacted from him by O’Higgins as a condition of his support.