Francisco Ferreyra versus Don Pedro Sueldo about reclaims. Córdoba, May 12th, 1853. In Villa de Rosario [Córdoba province] on May 17th, 1852, witnesses testified that Sueldo had escaped to Santa Fe [province] to avoid prosecution, and they did not know if the animals that he took belonged specifically to Vicente Ferreyra. Francisco Ferreyra on June 3rd, 1852 accused Sueldo of taking his family's estancia during the 1840s. He stated that the order came specifically from the government. One witness saw the Ferreyra family's brand mark on one cow. He also brought witnesses who worked for Sueldo.

For all of the declarations that have been brought, Señor Mayor, Sueldo disposed of our property as if he was the owner of all our property. . . The most serious measures were taken [against our family] for the security and tranquility of the province. . . [in the 1840s] Don Vicente Ferreyra found out somewhere that it was said that Colonel Salas would march to the province of Córdoba with force, but in fact, he had escaped with various soldiers at his command to Santa Fe, Don Ferreyra having been one among them. . . Ferreyra also drove toward Sante Fe, and he and others emigrated after being ordered to do so. . .

On July 29th, 1852, it is the order of this court, considering first that the estancia was taken with public authority without which had been proven and that [Sueldo] was given permission to its particular uses; second, that Sueldo had used the embargoed property in Calchín; third, that the same [Sueldo] took the [Ferreyras'] furniture; and fourth, that Sueldo took all of the animals out of the province for Santa Fe. . . Don Pedro Sueldo would be absolved of the first three charges; [however,] he is ordered to pay in money or value the attached appraisal of 27 sheep, 70 goats, 21 bushels of wheat, 15 milking cows, etc with more than 200 pesos multiplied by the private interest which accrued during the course of eleven years. . . Tomás Garzón.

[Pedro Sueldo was not satisfied with the verdict and appealed. Daniel, Francisco's brother, responded to one of Sueldo's appeal.]

In the name of the offended, justice commands silence to those, like Sueldo, who have the audacity to say that they served the Patria, [and] who invoke a reputation [and] a good name that they never had received [in the first place]. They talk about their services to the state! These [services] are evident in Villa [de Rosario], a place once full of respectable families before and now depopulated [and] in ruins. They refer to their work for the Patria, but those like [Sueldo] only served as instruments of tyranny to tie the hands and feet [of the Country], sending it to the monster that devours it!!! Oh! No, it is better that Sueldo remain silent. Daniel Ferreyra

José Antonio Juárez requests the court's permission to marry Candelaria Portillo. In Buenos Aires on May 15th, 1830, presented before the Señor President of the Tribunal of Justice is José Antonio Juarez, native of Corrientes, son of Martín Juarez, of Pardo status, and of Manuela Antonia Bentis, Indian, and both parents deceased, and said that he aspires to contract a marriage with Candelaria Portillo, slave of Don Juan Antonio Carmona, who lives in the neighborhood of the residence in this city.

[He is] requesting through the Señor Provisor judicial license in a manner showing that he is older than 25, that he does not have living parents nor kin (relatives) in this city where he has been raised since he was a very young child, that there is a difference of status [between the two], [and] that his expected wife is a slave. In consequence of this request, it will happen that within four days, I will present witnesses which they know and to whom are certain to testify about their deceased parents and of the condition that she has shown. . . Fernando Baez Escobar.

LONG LIVE THE FEDERATION!

Córdoba, April 16th, 1841

Most Excellent Señor Governor Don Manuel López,

I just found out at this moment that Roca addressed a little letter to Your Excellency, and I have anticipated that it will be his business to communicate to Your Excellency a disagreement that he has had with his stepchildren: Your Excellency cannot imagine the grief that it has caused me to have to tell you [about] the annoyance of a man that should close his mouth in a matter in which he is precisely at fault. . . only a man like him can have the audacity to address Your Excellency. But I hope that Your Excellency will not take one step without being well informed; I hope that you will acquaint the authorities with "my sons" because that is also what I call them. . . and all of [the local authorities] have known that…[Roca] does not have the authority because only he has wanted to commit the most atrocious slander, and hoping to find protection in Your Excellency that everyone here denies. . . But as Providence does not forsake justice, I have been able to be afforded counsel, and as such, I feel obligated to say in favor of justice that whatever Roca says against them is a grave lie; because I know the irreprehensible behavior of the children, their honor, and all the qualities that can rest in a man that has the title of honest and honorable man.

Not having time to make a report of what has happened, I will be content with saying to Your Excellency that Roca has wanted to accuse the children of being Unitarians because he had no other more noble weapons to attack them; but he has deceived himself into believing that he could prove anything because he cannot provide more proof than hearsay that one of them composed a song against the Federalists. . . and above all, they are children who still do not have the ability to think things over, and [even if the accusations were true] it is not so strange that they were blinded, and [even] cautious men have been surprised by the craftiness of the Savages [Unitarians].

I hope that Your Excellency will not make the case [only] from all that Roca says, and that you will not take action against them until you are well informed, and in order not to have the slightest misgivings, Teresita and I will guarantee their conduct. . .

Ignacia Funes
Teresa Bulnes de Aldao

[Excerpted from Final Judgement, June 8, 1831]

In Buenos Aires on June 8th, 1831, [those] present in the courtroom of the Public Court are Dr. Don Ventura Martínez, Counsel to Don Eduardo Brown, his son Don Leonardo Brown, Don Manuel Alvarez, and Doña Magdalena Rivas and her daughter, Doña Magdalena. Having provided the report of Don Martínez, as the counsel to the first expressed [Don Eduardo Brown], to the judge: that in attention to having left the authority of his father without consent and finding the young Don Leonardo still under the patria potestad for not being more than nineteen years of age, asked the court the restitution of what was taken, such as a box that had been bought and a mattress as a sign of marriage which had been given to the young woman that he had tried to marry. In this case, I take the word of Doña Magdalena Rivas, mother of the young woman indicated, who confessed that these were gifts that had been made to the referred daughter by the young man Don Leonardo. Heard before all of You Señores and Señoras, it is resolved that the young man be returned to his house of his father, ordering the same mother of the young woman the expressed indicated be restituted with which this concludes this act. . .

Edward Brown
Leonard Brown

[Plea to Court, August 11, 1831]

Don Edward Brown, appearing before Your Excellency as the best law provider, says: that after having reclaimed from Your Excellency the legal protection of patria potestad for the flight that my son made from my house and the other excesses committed by my son, Leonardo, he reached the point of denying his ancestry, which I proved to the satisfaction of the court. Unfortunately, another incident has occurred that adds further credence to the bad behavior of this young man.

He has presented himself before the President of the most Excellent Chamber denying my authority as a father and requesting permission to contract marriage, and to prove my authority, it is indispensable to have the court clerk provide me the affidavit of what happened before Your Excellency for the reasons I have already indicated. . . Edward Brown, Buenos Aires, August 11, 1831.

1. Lynch, John. Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 2001.
   This classic work is the most accessible English-language biography on Juan Manuel de Rosas; it provides a cogent explanation of how the rosista state employed state terror within Argentina.
2. Shumway, Jeffrey M. The Case of the Ugly Suitor and Other Histories of Love, Gender, and Nation in Buenos Aires, 1776-1870. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2005.
   This important book documents the rich variety of legal challenges that young people of Buenos Aires brought against parental and state authorities.
3. Stevens, Donald F. "Passion and Patriarchy in Nineteenth-Century Argentina: María Luisa Bemberg's Camila." In Based on a True Story: Latin American History at the Movies, edited by Donald F. Stevens, 85-102. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, Inc., 1997.
   Stevens's superb article compares the real life story of Camila O'Gorman with María Luisa Bemberg's film Camila (1984), which, as he argues, is a feminist critique of patriarchy and state authority. Author includes a solid bibliography of Spanish-language primary sources on O'Gorman's life.
4. Szuchman, Mark D. "A Challenge to the Patriarchs: Love Among the Youth in Nineteenth-Century Argentina." In The Middle Period in Latin America: Values and Attitudes in the 17th-19th Centuries, edited by Mark D. Szuchman, 141-65. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1989.
   The author deftly traces how children challenged parental authority by filing lawsuits in provincial courts over spousal choices.
5. Szuchman, Mark D. Order, Family, and Community in Buenos Aires, 1810-1860. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988.
   Szuchman discusses the impact of authoritarianism on household structure and families. He also includes seminal chapters on parental conflicts with children during the Rosas era and the Argentine state's attempts to use the educational system to socialize children.

by Janelle Collett
(Suggested writing time: 50 minutes)

The following question is based on the documents included in this module. This question is designed to test your ability to work with and understand historical documents.

Drawing on specific examples from the sources in the module, write a well- organized essay of at least five paragraphs in which you answer the following question:

• What ideals did the Rosas regime promote for the youth of Argentina? How did the regime enforce those ideals and how did the youth combat them?

Your essay should:

• have a relevant, clear thesis that answers the question,
• use at least six of the documents,
• analyze the documents by grouping them in as many appropriate ways as possible, not simply summarize the documents individually, and
• take into account both the sources of the documents and the creators' points of view.

Be sure to analyze point of view in at least three documents or images.

What additional sources, types of documents, or information would you need to have a more complete view of this topic?

You may refer to relevant historical information not mentioned in the documents.

Grateful acknowledgement is made to the following institutions for primary sources:

• Archivo General de la Nación,
• Archivo Histórico de la Provincia de Buenos Aires,
• Archivo Histórico de la Provincia de Córdoba,
• Planeta Publishing,
• Scholarly Resources,
• Stanford University Press, and
• Taurus Publishing.

About the Author

Jessie Hingson is an Assistant Professor of History at Jacksonville University in Jacksonville, Florida. He received his Doctorate from Florida International University and is the author of several articles on the history of race and family in post-independence Argentina. His work has been supported by grants from Fulbright, Rotary International, and the Department of Education.

About the Lesson Plan Author

Janelle Collett is the chair of the History Department at Springside School in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where she teaches seventh grade World History, ninth grade World History, and electives on the history of violence and nonviolence. In January of 2006, she was a member of an American History Association Conference panel, "Teaching the Nation as Imagined Community: Strategies for Understanding Nationalisms in the Classroom," and she has presented in a variety of settings on effective uses of technology in the classroom.

Between 1810 and 1860, Argentina emerged as a deeply divided nation. One of the main problems that remained unresolved throughout the 19th century was how power would be shared between Buenos Aires, the capital, and the rest of the provinces. Juan Manuel de Rosas, who ruled the country between 1829 and 1852, provided some semblance of order. However, he failed to share power with other groups, and the nation was not able to establish a lasting peace until the early 1860s. Studying this period is significant because it allows us to better understand the reasons for underdevelopment, authoritarianism, and political instability in Argentina's not so distant past and why these problems continue to exist in many parts of Latin America today.

A New and Divided Nation

After Argentina formally declared its independence from Spain in 1816, partisan wars broke out between two elite factions, Federalists and Unitarians. These groups had vastly different visions for how Argentina should be governed, but these views were based mostly on self-interest rather than ideology. Unitarians promoted the idea of centralizing power into Buenos Aires. They sought to reduce the power of the Catholic Church, which they saw as a symbol of the "colonial past." and they wanted to establish freer domestic and foreign trade. Unitarians also imagined a nation that promoted European-style "progress" and "civilization." This vision of modernization favored European immigrants over Argentina's poorer gaucho (rural itinerant workers) population and caudillos (regional strongmen). During the 1820s, Unitarian governments in control of Buenos Aires attempted to implement their reforms throughout the nation.

Opposing these efforts, Federalists emerged as a broad-based group, including ranchers and local merchants, who saw free trade and foreign competition as threats to their economic interests. Federalists tended to favor local political control and viewed Unitarians' political reforms as violations of their sovereignty. Federalists also wanted to maintain the power of the Church as an institution of social control. The Unitarians rejected what they called the "barbarism" of Federalist supporters, including Argentina's poorer gaucho (rural itinerant workers) population and their caudillo (regional strongman) leaders.

Throughout the 1820s, Unitarian governments implemented their reforms in Buenos Aires while the rest of the country fiercely resisted these efforts. Political tensions mounted when, in 1826, Unitarians tried to impose a Unitarian constitution over the rest of the country. However, in the following year, the Unitarian government in Buenos Aires resigned under pressure from powerful interests within the interior provinces. Manuel Dorrego, a Federalist, became governor. One of his first acts was to invalidate the Unitarian constitution, but he especially angered Unitarians by establishing peace with Brazil, which had been at war with Argentina since 1825. Both countries had been fighting for control of the eastern bank of the River Plate. Unitarians wanted to continue the war in order to add another province to Argentina and to prevent the loss of lands held by wealthy ranchers from Buenos Aires. However, the war was costly, and in late 1828, Dorrego accepted a British-brokered deal, which recognized the creation of a new "Uruguay" as a buffer state between the two countries. Returning from their military campaigns, Unitarian forces overthrew the Federalist government and assassinated Dorrego. The provinces did not accept the Unitarian constitution, and civil war broke out.

"The Restorer of the Laws"

In response to the discord, different regions of the country experienced the rise of brutally repressive regimes ruled by caudillos, who re-established order. Beginning in 1829, Juan Manuel de Rosas, a wealthy rancher and Federalist, asserted his control over Buenos Aires and the rest of the nation. Supported by a powerful, large land-holding class, Rosas governed through a combination of patronage and state violence. Seen by his supporters as "The Restorer of the Laws," he sanctioned property confiscation, execution, torture, and forced exile against Unitarian suspects and other political enemies.

Historians often underscore Rosas's brutality against his foes by pointing to the headings on most official documents: "Long Live the Federation! Death to the Savage Unitarians!" By 1835, Rosas dominated the other provinces, expanded the Indian frontier, awarded land to influential people and loyalists, and exported wool and hides to meet the demands of Western Europe. In 1852, the dictator's reign ended when other Federalists, tired of his meddling in provincial affairs, defeated him at the Battle of Caseros.

Youth and the Rosas State

The political violence, civil strife, and authoritarianism of the early 19th century deeply affected the daily lives of young people. One consequence was the weakening of powers that fathers, as patriarchs, had within the household. Colonial authorities long recognized the traditional legal concept of patria potestad, whereby absolute authority within families was given to male heads. This meant that patriarchs would have, in theory at least, the last word over their children's life decisions, particularly relating to education, work, and marriage. After independence, however, patriarchal authority began a slow decline. Hundreds of male heads of families were imprisoned, killed, drafted into Unitarian or Federalist armies, or took extended leaves for business or seasonal labor.

For middle class and elite families, Argentina's political leaders viewed schools as one of the most important institutions of civil life and social control. The idea was that teachers would aid in the state's efforts to incorporate children into the political system. Indeed, scholars have shown that primary and secondary schools were crucial in educating an entire generation of new Argentine citizens. Thousands of boys and girls were not only taught grammar and arithmetic, but also a deep respect for authority and patriotic values.

The Rosas state moved aggressively to employ lower-class youngsters when the wars and civil strife of the early 19th century caused labor shortages, especially in rural areas. Social critics also saw lower-class children as a potential source of social disorder and sought to harness their energies as laborers. Law enforcement officials restricted youngsters' mobility by strictly enforcing passport and anti-vagrancy laws.

In towns across Argentina, the conchabo system gave local police broad authority to draft children to work in public works projects, private homes, factories, or wherever laborers were needed. The office typically in charge of placing young workers was called the defensor de menores, a public institution dating back to the colonial period. The defensor drew up labor agreements that tied young people to particular jobs, but these contracts had the unintended effect of giving young people some degree of freedom from parental authority.

Argentina's laws also allowed children to be entrusted with decisions related to marriage and property. Girls could marry and hold a dowry at the age of 12. Boys could not marry until they turned 14. This is not to say that parents or their children sought marriage contracts at these early ages. By law, girls and boys had to wait until they were 23 and 25 years old, respectively, before they could marry without permission from their parents. After 1810, however, young people were marrying at younger ages and had more input into selecting spouses. This included choosing mates who were closer to their own ages and sometimes outside their familial socio-economic and racial boundaries.

Parents lamented with growing frequency and alarm the rebelliousness of their children and attempted to control their behavior through legal means. Many of these disputes appeared in lawsuits, or disensos, filed by parents asserting their parental rights and obligations in order to guide the behaviors of their children. Sons and daughters also sued their parents, seeking the right to marry freely partners of their own choosing.

While these individual actions played out in the courts, authorities under Rosas dealt harshly with youngsters who violated legal and social conventions. In 1847, Camila O'Gorman, the daughter of a prominent merchant, and Ladislao Gutiérrez, a Catholic priest, caused a huge public scandal when they ran away together. The following year, the couple was captured. Rosas personally ordered their execution for violating the social order. According to the dictator, their actions were a direct attack on his authority and that he wanted to make an example out of them.

Camila's story is often seen as an example of the extreme measures the Rosas state took to control the behaviors of Argentina's younger population. Indeed, Rosas wanted to make an example out of the young couple. However, this story of forbidden love is also representative of how young people challenged authority as ideas of republicanism, equality, and individualism swept through the Americas. The execution of the young couple (along with the fact that Camila was eight months pregnant at the time of her death!) undermined support for the Rosas regime. Moreover, Camila's story resonates even today as a reminder of the legacy of authoritarianism in Argentina's history. María Luísa Bemberg wrote and directed the feature film, Camila (1984), as a harsh critique of patriarchy and military rule.

This teaching module incorporates a variety of primary sources that shed light on the shifting boundaries of parental roles and expectations, young people's behaviors, and social status in early to mid-19th century Argentina.

One strategy is to divide the sources into two sets. The first set might include evidence on the expectations that both parents and political leaders had for children. Parents, especially fathers, in early 19th century Argentina wanted their children to marry for particular strategic reasons (e.g., to maintain wealth across generations) rather than for romantic love. In addition, Argentina's leaders sought to socialize children by closely regulating dress, public behavior, and education. Young people today should have little difficulty understanding the weight of parents' expectations on their lives and the rules that authorities create to govern their conduct. Thus, it might be a good exercise to relate these ideas to the students' lives.

A second set of documents would be organized around the variety of ways in which Argentina's youth responded to the rules and regulations that governed their lives. The evidence from the era shows that young people adopted a variety of political viewpoints. Manuelita Rosas's portrait, for example, represents one way in which young people supported the regime. However, legal documents reveal the willingness and capability of young people to use the court system to advance their interests, which were often at odds with those of their parents. Camila's story demonstrates one young person's challenge to both parental and state authority. This evidence not only demonstrates sharp generational differences but also how legal institutions became increasingly involved in family matters as parental authority began to wane.

Examining official records, however, presents special challenges. For example, legal language may be confusing, and biases may be difficult to detect. Nevertheless, it is possible to make sense of these documents by following some general advice.

First, it is necessary to understand that the primary role of civil courts in any adversarial system is to satisfy demands. Typically, this involved two parties, who were recognized as legitimate groups before the courts. Children or their legal guardians had the right to sue, especially when property or transfer of wealth was involved.

Second, gather basic information from the document about what happened. The "facts" of a case might be incongruous with our own understanding of prevailing norms and practices. For example, students today might have a hard time reconciling the fact that people in their early 20s were still considered minors.

Discussion Questions

• What areas of young people's lives did parental and state authorities try to control in Argentina during the early 19th century?
• What strategies did young people in early 19th-century Argentina use to resist parental control?

Lesson Plan: Love and Rebellion in Argentina

by Janelle Collett

Time Estimated: four 50-minute classes

Objectives

1. Synthesize understanding of primary sources with understanding of secondary sources.
2. Understand why the Rosas regime asserted its authority in this case and the larger implications for how an unstable state responds to threats to their power.
3. Debate how a state can best maintain order.

Materials

• "To the Spirits of Camila O'Gorman" [Poem]
• "Camila O'Gorman" [Painting]
• Adolfo O'Gorman to Juan Manuel de Rosas [Letter]

Day One

Hook
Read out loud "To the Spirits of Camila O'Gorman." Make sure students are not given the introduction.

Ask students to write a short story imagining who she was and what happened to her.

Have students volunteer to share their stories.

As a class, identify patterns in the stories. What were they able to infer about Camila O'Gorman from the poem?

Homework
Students must read the introduction to "To the Spirits of Camila O'Gorman" in order to find out the story of what actually happened to her AND the introduction to the Teaching Module, "Youth, Love, & Authority in Argentina" (19th c).

Day Two

Background
Discuss "Youth, Love, & Authority in Argentina."

Create a timeline as a class, including the most significant events that occurred in Argentina between 1810 and 1860.

Who was Camila O'Gorman? Why is her fate significant to understanding this period in Argentina?

Examine "Camila O'Gorman" Painting

• How has the artist portrayed Camila? Does she look like a criminal? Like an innocent victim?
• How do you believe the artist felt about her execution?

Read the letter from Adolfo O'Gorman to Juan Manuel de Rosas out loud.

• Why did Adolfo O'Gorman write this letter? (What was his purpose?)
• What arguments does he use to try to persuade Juan Manuel de Rosas to agree with him?

Day Three

Four Corners Debate!

• Write the following statement on the board: "A government has the right to use violence to enforce the law."
• In each of the four corners of the room, hang a poster with one of the following statements: "Strongly Agree," "Agree," "Disagree," and "Strongly Disagree."
• Instruct students to stand in the corner of the room with the poster that states the position they want to argue.
• Once students are in the corner of their choice, instruct them to discuss with their group why they all chose that position. As a group, they must construct an argument and evidence to support that argument. Then, they must choose a group leader.
• Group leaders present their argument and evidence to the class.
• When group leaders are finished presenting, students may change corners if they have been persuaded to another point of view.

Homework
Students will each write a paragraph defending the point of view written on the poster they chose at the end of class yesterday.

Day Four

Debrief

• Which group was most persuasive in their arguments? What did they do differently that made them so persuasive?
• Which group would Juan Manuel de Rosas have agreed with? Adolfo O'Gorman? Camila O'Gorman? Juan Leon Palliére?
• What drives a government to be so extreme in its enforcement of the law?
• What drives individuals to disobey a government that is all-powerful and willing to use violence to punish disobedience?
• Is there any way for a government to maintain order if individuals disobey the law other than violence?

Differentiation

Advanced Students
After the debate, instead of a paragraph, students will write an essay for homework answering the question, "What are the strengths and weaknesses of an authoritarian regime?"

Less Advanced Students
Allow one more day for activity. As a class, fill out a SCARABS sheet for each of the three primary sources.

• Subject of the primary source
• Context: what was happening when it was created?
• Author or creator
• Reason the source was created
• Audience: for whom was this source created?
• Bias of creator of source
• Significance of the source (why is it important?)