Translated by Lewis Bertrand in Selected
Writings of Bolivar, (New York: The colonial Press Inc.,1951)
REPLY OF A SOUTH AMERICAN TO
A GENTLEMAN OF THIS ISLAND [JAMAICA]
Also known as the Jamaican
letter (1815)
Background:
Simon
Bolivar, (1783-1830) the most renowned leader of the Latin American
independence movement, is known throughout Latin America as “El Libertador:
(“The Liberator”). He was born to a
wealthy Venezuelan landowning family in 1783.
Orphaned at an early age, he was educated by a private tutor who
inspired in his pupil an enthusiasm for the principles of the Enlightenment and
republicanism. After spending three
years in Europe, Bolivar returned to New Spain in 1803, where the death of his
new bride plunged him into grief and caused his return to France and
Italy. In 1805 in Rome he took a vow to
dedicate his life to the liberation of his native land. On his return in 1807 to Venezuela he became
a leading member of the republican-minded group in Caracas that in 1808 began
to agitate for independence and in 1810 deposed the colonial governor and in
18ll declared independence. Until his death in 1830, Bolivar dedicated himself
to the Latin American independence movement as a publicist, diplomat,
theoretician, and statesman. His
greatest contribution was as the general who led the armies that defeated the
Spaniards and liberated the northern regions of South America.
The so-called Jamaica Letter is
one of the most famous political manifestoes, it was written by Simon in 1815
during the self-imposed exile in Jamaica.
It was addressed to “an English gentlemen,” probably the island’s
governor, the Duke of Manchester. Its
optimistic outlook is all the more remarkable in that it was written at the low
point of the struggle against Spain. The
Venezuelan Republic had collapsed in May as a result of a viciously fought
Spanish counteroffensive, divisions among the revolutionaries, and opposition
from many Indians. Blacks, and mulattos, who viewed the Creole landowners, not
the Spaniards, as their oppressors.
The
ideas he expressed here for the reorganization of the states of Latin America
were ones that he attempted to put into practice during his years of power as
president of Peru, Colombia, and Bolivia.
The
letter was written in response to a request from the Englishman for Bolivar’s
thoughts about the background and prospects of the liberation movement.
Note:
additional comments – When Napoleon conquered Spain the hold that Spain had on
Venezuela and other Latin American countries was loosened. Bolivar assumed leadership of the revolution
first in Venezuela and then in New Granada, a large territory comprised of what
is modern-day Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. In 1819, Bolivar’s army defeated the Spanish
forces in a portion of New Granada and he declared the liberated territory the
Republic of Colombia. The fighting
against Spain continued for another six years before upper Peru was finally
won. The territory was renamed Bolivia
in his honor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kingston, Jamaica, September 6, 1815.
My dear Sir:
With what a feeling of
gratitude I read that passage in your letter in which you say to me: "I
hope that the success which then followed Spanish arms may now turn in favor of
their adversaries, the badly oppressed people of South America." I take
this hope as a prediction, if it is justice that determines man's contests.
Success will crown our efforts, because the destiny of America has been
irrevocably decided; the tie that bound her to Spain has been severed. Only a
concept maintained that tie and kept the parts of that immense monarchy
together. That which formerly bound them now divides them. The hatred that the
Peninsula has inspired in us is greater than the ocean between us. It would be
easier to have the two continents meet than to reconcile the spirits of the two
countries. The habit of obedience; a community of interest, of understanding,
of religion; mutual goodwill; a tender regard for the birthplace and good name
of our forefathers; in short, all that gave rise to our hopes, came to us from
Spain. As a result there was born principle of affinity that seemed eternal,
notwithstanding the misbehavior of our rulers which weakened that sympathy, or,
rather, that bond enforced by the domination of their rule. At present the
contrary attitude persists: we are threatened with the fear of death, dishonor,
and every harm; there is nothing we have not suffered at the hands of that unnatural
stepmother-Spain. The veil has been torn asunder. We have already seen the
light, and it is not our desire to be thrust back into darkness…
The role of the inhabitants of
the American hemisphere has for centuries been purely passive. Politically they
were nonexistent. We are still in a position lower than slavery, and therefore
it is more difficult for us to rise to the enjoyment of freedom…States are
slaves because of either the nature or the misuse of their constitutions; a
people is therefore enslaved when the government, by its nature or its vices,
infringes on and usurps the rights of the citizen or subject. Applying these
principles, we find that America was denied not only its freedom but even an
active and effective tyranny. Let me explain. Under absolutism there are no
recognized limits to the exercise of governmental powers. The will of the great
sultan, khan, bey, and other despotic rulers is the supreme law, carried out
more or less arbitrarily by the lesser pashas, khans, and satraps of Turkey and
Persia, who have an organized system of oppression in which inferiors
participate according to the authority vested in them. To them is entrusted the
administration of civil, military, political, religious, and tax matters. But,
after all is said and done, the rulers of Isfahan are Persians; the viziers of
the Grand Turk are Turks; and the sultans of Tartary are Tartars.
How different is our situation!
We have been harassed by a conduct which has not only deprived us of our rights
but has kept us in a sort of permanent infancy with regard to public affairs.
If we could at least have managed our domestic affairs and our internal
administration, we could have acquainted ourselves with the processes and
mechanics of public affairs. We should also have enjoyed a personal
consideration, thereby commanding a certain unconscious respect from the
people, which is so necessary to preserve amidst revolutions. That is why I say
we have even been deprived of an active tyranny, since we have not been
permitted to exercise its functions.
Americans today, and perhaps to
a greater extent than ever before, who live within the Spanish system occupy a
position in society no better than that of serfs destined for labor, or at best
they have no more status than that of mere consumers. Yet even this status is
surrounded with galling restrictions, such as being forbidden to grow European
crops, or to store products which are royal monopolies, or to establish
factories of a type the Peninsula itself does not possess. To this add the
exclusive trading privileges, even in articles of prime necessity, and the
barriers between American provinces, designed to prevent all exchange of trade,
traffic, and understanding. In short, do you wish to know what our future
held?--simply the cultivation of the fields of indigo, grain, coffee, sugar
cane, cacao, and cotton; cattle raising on the broad plains; hunting wild game
in the jungles; digging in the earth to mine its gold--but even these
limitations could never satisfy the greed of Spain.
So negative was our existence
that I can find nothing comparable in any other civilized society, examine as I
may the entire history of time and the politics of all nations. Is it not an
outrage and a violation of human rights to expect a land so splendidly endowed,
so vast, rich, and populous, to remain merely passive?
As I have just explained, we
were cut off and, as it were, removed from the world in relation to the science
of government and administration of the state. We were never viceroys or
governors, save in the rarest of instances; seldom archbishops and bishops;
diplomats never; as military men, only subordinates; as nobles, without royal
privileges. In brief, we were neither magistrates nor financiers and seldom
merchants--all in flagrant contradiction to our institutions.
It is harder, Montesquieu has
written, to release a nation from servitude than to enslave a free nation. This
truth is proven by the annals of all times, which reveal that most free nations
have been put under the yoke, but very few enslaved nations have recovered
their liberty. Despite the convictions of history, South Americans have made
efforts to obtain liberal, even perfect, institutions, doubtless out of that
instinct to aspire to the greatest possible happiness, which, common to all
men, is bound to follow in civil societies founded on the principles of
justice, liberty, and equality. But are we capable of maintaining in proper
balance the difficult charge of a republic? Is it conceivable that a newly
emancipated people can soar to the heights of liberty, and, unlike Icarus,
neither have its wings melt nor fall into an abyss? Such a marvel is
inconceivable and without precedent. There is no reasonable probability to
bolster our hopes.
More than anyone, I desire to see America fashioned into the greatest
nation in the world, greatest not so much by virtue of her area and wealth as
by her freedom and glory. Although I seek perfection for the government of my
country, I cannot persuade myself that the New World can, at the moment, be
organized as a great republic. Since it is impossible, I dare not desire it;
yet much less do I desire to have all America a monarchy because this plan is
not only impracticable but also impossible. Wrongs now existing could not be
righted, and our emancipation would be fruitless. The American states need the
care of paternal governments to heal the sores and wounds of despotism and war.
. .
From the foregoing, we can draw these conclusions: The American
provinces are fighting for their freedom, and they will ultimately succeed.
Some provinces as a matter of course will form federal and some central
republics; the larger areas will inevitably establish monarchies, some of which
will fare so badly that they will disintegrate in either present or future
revolutions. To consolidate a great monarchy will be no easy task, but it will
be utterly impossible to consolidate a great republic.
When success is not assured, when the state is weak, and when results
are distantly seen, all men hesitate; opinion is divided, passions rage, and
the enemy fans these passions in order to win an easy victory because of them.
As soon as we are strong and under the guidance of a liberal nation which will
lend us her protection, we will achieve accord in cultivating the virtues and
talents that lead to glory. Then will we march majestically toward that great
prosperity for which South America is destined.
I am, Sir, etc., etc.
Simón Bolivar
Develop the following questions for next class:
- Why does Bolivar believe that Spain’s efforts to hold on to its American territories are doomed?
- What Spanish policies, according to Bolivar, made Spanish rule odious to him and other revolutionaries?
- In Bolivar’s view, what complicates the task of predicting Spanish America’s political future?
- Does Bolivar’s letter reveal concern for the economic and social condition of South American’s nonwhite population? What are some of the implications of Bolivar’s attitudes?
- Based on your reading of Bolivar, what guesses can you make about the reasons why the new nations of South America found it difficult to achieve stable republican governments?
