http://www.fff.org/freedom/0794a.asp
I want to know your honest opinions about this character, I have read quite the opposite but its considered revisionism in Argentina. Was he considered an enlightened tyrant similar to Pedro II of Brazil? Was his hand really “forced.” Did he truly want a confederacy? I understand most are Ancaps and prefer no state. But I’m stumped of how I should consider this individual in the eyes of history.
The big problem with all these Latin Americans dictators, presidents for life and assorted populists is they are often seen through rose-tinted glasses by Europeans and Americans who often depict them as romantic idealists fighting injustice and bringing about equality. Juan Peròn and his wife are still idolized to this day by many who saw them as the benefactors of the poor: for a time Evita was an extremely poular girl name in parts of Europe.
Juan Manuel de Rosas is one of them. The revolutionaries who defeated and exiled him in 1852 were absolutely stumped by how he was highly regarded in Europe (particularly France and Great Britain, which granted him asylum) given his track record.
Yes, de Rosa said he had been inspired by the Constitution of the United States to provide a new organization to the Argentine Confederation but in reality this starkely contrasted with his vision of power: he considered himself the “father” of the Argentine Confederation and as such he handed out punishment and rewards as he saw fit. He could not just let the various provincial governments to run their own affairs as they saw fit and had to intervene and micromanage from the top. As he grew older he became obsessed with the idea the country was about to fall prey to anarchy, which he usually identified with various provincial governors and military officers. His paranoia and obsession with micromanagement may have in fact fueled the revolts which marked a good part of his rule. The fact he couldn’t stand criticism and started persecuting political opponents as soon as he had the chance didn’t help either.
In the social field he was clearly a populist and in a recent work he has been called not without reason a “primitive populist” and seen as the forerunner of Juan Peròn. This view is confirmed by the fact in Argentine historiography de Rosa was clearly depicted as a tyrant between 1852 and 1930 while later, during the various military dictatorships which ruled the country, he was highly praised . The fact Juan Peròn deeply admired him contributed to his popularity outside of Argentina to no small end.