Why I Taught the Source

The story of colonialism in the early modern era is generally told as one of adults—and primarily adult men—exploring, conquering, and transporting goods and ideas. Historians of women have made it increasingly clear that women are also important actors in this story, but children and adolescents have received little attention. They were also involved, although primarily as members of families, so it is difficult to find much information about them. Orphans were a different story, and they offer an unusual opportunity to see how children fit into the plans and realities of colonial expansion.

The source included here is a suggestion for handling orphans, devised in 1655 by Manoel Severim de Faria, an official for the bishop of Evora in Portugal. In this source he speaks specifically about the role orphaned children could and should play in the Portuguese empire. The source links to many issues in the early modern world, including maritime expansion, gender norms, and changing patterns of poverty, and through these to contemporary issues as well. It provides insight into attitudes toward one particular group of children in an era of competition for wealth and dominance among European powers.

How I Introduce the Source

I have used this source in several different courses: world history, European history, and the history of women and gender. I provide students with guidance and pose a series of questions as we read the source together. It is important that students have the source in front of them, so that every time they answer a question they can point to the specific part of text from which they are drawing information. It is sometimes helpful to have students read the source sentence by sentence until they become more familiar with the official bureaucratese in which it is written. I have found that this can be a useful technique any time a class—even an advanced undergraduate or graduate class—is stuck interpreting materials, for it allows the group to work together as it puzzles through difficult passages.

Students showed better understanding of the source if they were first provided with some background about the way orphans were handled in early modern Europe, which I did orally in some cases and through a written introduction to the source in others. I began by noting that many children in early modern Europe lost one or both parents while they were still young. Most children whose parents had died were taken into the home of a relative, but for some this was not a possibility, and they were placed in a public or church orphanage. Occasionally children who had lost only one parent were placed in orphanages when the surviving spouse determined he or she could not care for them. Children were also left anonymously at the doors of convents or orphanages; most of these foundlings were probably born out of wedlock to poor mothers who could not care for a child while they worked as servants or day-laborers. Many students have heard about children abandoned at church doors and a few have read novels or seen movies about foundlings, so it is useful to discuss the generally dismal circumstances for most children born out of wedlock, and dispel the students' sometimes romantic notions.

Students gain from knowing a bit about the institutional context surrounding orphans, although this does not have to be extensive. The earliest public orphanages in European cities opened in the 14th century, sometimes as parts of city hospitals, and sometimes as independent institutions. Orphanages were supported by church donations, private endowments, and public funds, but the funds provided were often not sufficient to cover all expenses. Thus Severim de Faria's proposal includes much discussion of how to provide financial support for his plans.

Historical background about orphanages can tie into other themes of a course. Not surprisingly, the number of children in orphanages grew dramatically during times of plague or other epidemic diseases, a common topic in world history courses. Orphanages also swelled during times of war. Textbooks often present religious conflicts in early modern Europe in rather abstract terms, as ideas battling ideas, and a focus on what happened to children allows students to better understand the actual impact of religious violence. (This can also be linked with contemporary examples of religious violence.) The same goes for discussions of inflation and other economic dislocations of the 16th century; helping students think about the impact of rapidly-increasing prices for food and land on children makes economic statistics less dry, and also helps them connect the economic issues of the early modern period with those with which they are familiar in their own lives.

Reading the Source

I begin the actual reading of this source with my students by noting that Monoel Severim de Faria sees orphans within the context of social problems and their solutions. We identify these as we work carefully through the text. What are the problems he identifies? We discover a series of these: the lack of "cabin-boys. . .swabbers. . .and sailors" for the Portuguese fleet; poor training for those sailors, so that ships wreck and cargo is lost; vagabonds and people who Severim de Faria thinks are pretending to be poor. (Here you may wish to discuss why he thinks this is so, and link the issue with more recent examples of rhetoric about those taking advantage of social support systems, such as the notion of "welfare queens.") Severim also returns several times to his worries that Portugal is underpopulated. In discussing why he worried about this, we look at maps and at charts about relative European populations in the 16th century.

Once we have identified the problems he cites, we examine the solutions he proposes. Students see right away that the solutions are gender specific: boys are to work on ships and learn how to sail them better, girls are to get married and have more children. This often leads to a broader discussion of gender differences, and I bring in additional information. I note that in terms of gender differences in their life experiences, orphans were not distinct from other children in early modern Europe. In both families and orphanages, children were trained in gender-specific tasks: boys learned to care for animals and make simple items, girls to cook and care for clothing and laundry. When they were old enough, which meant somewhere between seven and 14, children in both families and orphanages often left their parents and moved in with a master or employer, with whom they lived for most of their adolescence. Boys were apprenticed to artisans to learn a trade, while girls worked as servants and gained more domestic skills.

Girls were expected to provide a dowry upon marriage, an issue that students can easily see in the source in Severim de Faria's examples of the way cities such as Milan and Seville "solved" their orphan problem. I have found that my female students of European background are often outraged by the practice of dowry, seeing it—much as Jane Austen did—as "buying a husband." This can lead to a broader discussion of marriage as a means of retaining and transferring wealth, a topic that is often lost in world history classes where the emphasis is generally on less personal economic institutions such as wage labor and commercial exchanges. Based on their reading of any textbook, your students will not be surprised that Severim de Faria connects Seville's growth and prosperity to "commerce with the Indies." Your discussion of marriage can help them see why he links these to "the marriages that take place every year" in Seville as well.

Severim de Faria's proposal is just that—a plan, not a reality. Nevertheless, several early modern governments and private companies established policies based on proposals such as Faria's.This could provide a springboard for student research projects on such public measures as: sending orphans and Jewish children from Portugal to Goa, Brazil, and west Africa; "company daughters" sent by the Dutch East India Company to the East Indies; the filles du roi sent to New France; orphans and other poor children taken off the streets of London and sent as indentured servants to Virginia. Coerced migration is a central part of world history, and involved young people as well as adults.

Reflections

Reading Severim de Faria's proposal allows students to see one way that children were integrated into plans for colonization, and trace ways in which European class and gender patterns were carried around the world. Students gain skill in interpreting official language from an earlier period, and in assessing the underlying assumptions of the author, both of which are important tools of historical analysis. They recognize that Severim de Faria was a member of Portugal's upper classes, concerned about economic growth and deeply suspicious of the poor. Comparisons with contemporary opinion on the part of wealthy and middle-class Americans are easy to draw. How to handle orphans and children whose parents cannot or will not take care of them are important challenges today, both close to home and globally, and this source leads easily to discussions of contemporary parallels in the situation of children as well. This source could thus easily be combined with other documents about poor, abandoned, or otherwise marginalized children from different eras.

Students initially think of Severim de Faria as positive toward women (because he wanted, in their words, to "help" them), but on closer reading they come to see the values underlying his calls for protection and the provision of dowries. This helps students learn that first readings are not always accurate, and that close attention to the tone as well as the exact language of a document is important.

The causes of bad attendance, exclusive of bad roads and inclement weather, may be classed under two heads - (1) The home circumstances of the pupils, and (2) the school and its authorities. Under the first head I may mention parental indifference or neglect and excessive work required from children of very tender years. I know that during the milking season some children have to milk as many as ten cows every morning, and, if they come to school at all, arrive late, and are so fatigued as to be unfit for the work of the day. Though I regret the fact, I am afraid that in some cases there is no just remedy, as in some of the outlying districts the struggle for existence is harder than many people imagine. I was told by one teacher that children at his school had to gather fungus during the day in order that the bare necessaries of life might be procured for the families, and I have no reason for doubting his word. . . . Under the second of the above heads there is ample scope for attraction. When a school building is ill-lighted, gloomy, and depressing one cannot wonder at children preferring to stay away more than at their preferring sunshine to dulness [sic]. Then by all means let our schools be cheerful, bright, and attractive, and let the walls be covered with interesting and instructive charts and pictures such as will arouse and sustain curiosity. . . . Let the first impressions of the school-day be pleasant ones. Let us have means by which the children may amuse themselves during the recesses and before school opens, and they will, if possible, come early and regularly for a brief interval of companionship and amusement. . . . Again, the personality of the teacher is a well-known factor in producing good or bad attendance. Lack of sympathy, harshness, carelessness, and incompetency will inevitably lower the attendance. . . .

JUVENILE DEPRAVITY SUPPRESSION BILL

Mr W. HUTCHINSON [member for Dunedin City] said this was a Bill entirely on the right lines, and he congratulated the Premier on its introduction; at the same time, he would allow him to say that it did not go far enough. The question was one of momentous importance, deeply affecting all the towns, and more especially all the cities and principal centres of population. . . . There were a number of young children amongst us painfully demoralised – so young, some of them, that the policeman could not think of interfering with them – children suffering from a so- called liberty run unto utter license and lawlessness; and all this arising largely from parental carelessness or positive neglect. He was not going to trouble the House with statistics. He did not know that statistics bearing precisely upon this point were available, and he had no wish to draw any darker picture of the case than the facts warranted. They were bad enough as it was. From communications he had had from Auckland, he found that this city suffered terribly from this blight of juvenile vice. . . .

He had no information that he could quote from Wellington or Christchurch, but there was little doubt that these cities were neither better nor worse than their neighbours. . . . He was glad to say that the large majority of our people cherished the love of their children and the purity of their households above all other possessions; they desire such legislation as is now proposed; and this all the more because there were poor children of the streets – strayed and straying – whose numbers were sometimes recruited by children from very respectable families – showing us a cruel and savage side to our civilisation. These mere children got together at the street-corner or under a dark verandah; they talked, or they listened to talk, not the sweet babble of childhood, mixed with its laugh of innocence, but talk that need not be described; they got into temptations of all kinds before they understood the disastrous results which certainly followed. He ventured to suggest that these young children should be dealt with before they come to those of more advanced age. The Bill before them took no note of this incipiency in vice, yet it was here the mischief began. The Bill was a police Bill, pure and simple; but they needed more. It was an out-worn but still perfectly true axiom that prevention was better than cure. Children up to ten years of age living in all our towns should be under the shelter of the household roof after nightfall; and the parents and guardians of these children should be responsible that it was so, under a penalty. If the children were out of doors they should be in the care of some grown-up person. Did anyone who knew what childhood was – its susceptibility to external influences and its facile aptitude to learn and assimilate impressions – doubt this proposition. There was a social gangrene. He would cut it out of the body politic by clearing the streets of all young children after dark. Surely there would be no hardship – no invasion of liberty, rightly understood – in doing so. A certain number of young children – very young children – had drifted away from parental care, and hung about the streets at night. It was not only wretchedness for themselves, and from which they had to be protected, but they were too apt to lead others into equal wretchedness; so that their protection was not only for themselves, but for others who might fall a prey to their evil example. He would not proposed to punish these unfortunate children. They had been neglected by their parents, and it was therefore on these parents the blame primarily rested. They must exercise their lawful authority, and see that their children were in the house at reasonable hours or take the consequence. . . . Turning to another phase of the question, he had become acquainted with cases in which the father told the Magistrate that his child was beyond control – that the child was unmanageable; and he dared say the father was correct. But it was only a confession of culpable and criminal weakness all the same. The child was certainly not beyond control when first he or she was permitted to roam the streets at improper hours; and the parental neglect demanded punishment. . . .

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.

[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.

LONG LIVE THE FEDERATION!

General Department of Police

CONTRACT
Buenos Aires, March 1841
Year 32 of Liberty, 25 of Independence,
and 12 of the Argentine Confederation

We, the undersigned, in accordance with the Law of November 17, 1821, agree upon the following articles:

Art. 1. We, the principals of Bourgan, Funge, and Co., declare that, in accordance with the proposal made to us by Doña Juana María Olivera to accept her son, Benjamín Montes, as apprentice in our factory, and receiving her promises of his good conduct, have agreed to do so for a term of three years, beginning at such time as we commence his training in the making of plush and silk hats at the level of perfections at which they are currently produced.

Art. 2. We commit ourselves to his maintenance and to give him shelter and thirty-five pesos monthly during the agreed-upon term of three years.

Art. 3. Benjamín Montes commits himself to perform all duties customary in the factory on Sundays and holidays, as required of him. He will maintain his cleanliness, he will be punctual in his working hours, and with his obligations away from the factory during such days when there is no work, and he will comply with his religious obligations.

Art. 4. Benjamín Montes, apprentice, will be obligated to maintain good order and harmony with the other members of the house during the agreed-upon term of three years, and to obey without hesitation whatever we or the foreman may ask of him (which will be only those things related to the factory or to its good order), and in the event that Benjamín should flee from the factory, it is the obligation of his mother to find him and to bring him back, and two days will be added to the contracted period of service for every day that he remains a fugitive.

Art. 5. I, Benjamín Montes, fully cognizant of everything contained in the previous four articles, and with the approval of My Lady Mother, declare that from this day forth I enter into apprenticeship for the agreed upon term of three years in the hat factory of Messrs. Bourgan Bunge (sic) and Co. under the conditions and obligations herein expressed, and as proof or our [agreement] they add their signatures to the one of My Lady Mother…and to the same effect it is all hereby authorized by the Chief of Police.

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?)

In this regard it is convenient and of great value to Portugal, given the great multitude of foundlings and [male] orphans that exist in this Realm, who could be of great utility to the Republic, [if] raised in proper doctrine and placed in trades. It is more expedient to use this remedy in maritime regions, such as Lisbon, Setúbal, Porto, Viana, and in the Algarve; for in these [places], orphans and the abandoned once taken into custody could supply ships with cabin-boys, and swabbers for vessels, and sailors, all of whom there is a great shortage in this Realm. The proper teaching and training would be of great profit to our navigations, for there is a common lack of breeding geared toward men of the sea, as we have seen in so many shipwrecks and losses, of which there are many complaints. With this remedy we will also stop many of those who pretend to be poor, or who are vagabonds in this Realm, and they will occupy themselves in honest work. This will be of benefit to the Republic, and with this the number of residents in those locations would increase, and the population in the Realm.

This way of recruiting the orphans is so well-known that already in 1641 the members of the Cortes [the Portuguese parliament] asked His Majesty with these words: "It would be greatly advantageous that in the amassing of young orphans we recruit many boys, and that an amount be applied for their sustenance, for they will be taught the art of seafaring, with which there will always be an abundance of mariners, of whom there is a great lack in this Realm." [They gave] the example of the hospital that the Queen of Castile set up in Madrid to train boys to be mariners due to the existing shortage of them. And the response from His Majesty is that he would order that which they asked of him.

The same that has been said for the relief and remedy of orphaned boys can be said of orphaned girls. This is better yet, [because] much more care must be given to them, for lack of support is a greater danger to them, for women have much less means of making a living than men. Thus it is appropriate that a remedy be found for them, by applying all the means that can exist to have these [female] orphans of the people get married: for besides the great service [this will provide] to Our Lord by removing the occasion for them to disgrace themselves, we will attain our aim of increasing the number of people with the multiplication of marriages. The City of Milan, which is the most populous in Europe, serves as an example of this; one of the reasons for its growth is the dowry it provides each year to 800 [female] orphans. The same can be seen in the increase that the city of Seville has had for some years; for whereas much of it was caused by the commerce with the Indies, we can also attribute it to the marriages that take place each year of a great number of [female] orphans. In that city there are chapels. . . founded exclusively with large endowments to marry many [female] orphans: besides this there are many hospitals. . . that each marry many young women, and there are many more [public and private charities] that with the surplus from their revenues carry out this act of charity.

To put this means to work: we say that some portion of municipal revenues could be used, where a surplus exists, or some revenue from the head tax could be assigned to this, which income could be used solely for this pious work. We would also ask all municipal judges and officials that whenever they find money or bequests left to spend on pious works that were not named by the testators, they order [this money] spent entirely on these weddings. And likewise other similar things could be found for this purpose.

A: Interview with Aitteti ole Nkarara, Sironkei ole Nkoie, and Seiro ole Rakwa – May 1973

Buxton was the man who shot Il Kidotu at Rotian. He was very brave but not a good man. He forced them to dig a road. They were told that they were going to cut a track. There were 600 murran cutting the road. Il Diegi had drunk milk but Il Kidotu went to Eunoto after the fight. 1 Kimoruai was the laibon. He was [very] powerful . . . and had many cattle. He was . . . a very nice, bright, man -- polite, not harsh. He was friendly to the Europeans, but even if he was not , the Europeans did not care because they had defeated the murran , all the elders and the laibons. . . .

The day that the fight occurred, Il Diegi were in the forest cutting and Il Kidotu were the murran digging. They had changed from the day before. There was a tree . . . that caused the fight. They had to cut it for eight days. On this day, Il Diegi passed the tree. Buxton came along on a horse with a white leg and stood by them and told them to cut the tree. They had cut the other trees and they refused to cut this big tree. They cut another tree. Then he started to insist and they again refused. Then people cried out . Buxton heard this and went, shouting to his camp. The murran heard the cry and thought that the elders were fighting the Europeans. They gathered together, threw down their [hoes], and rushed to their manyatta, which was nearby, to prepare. The elders tried to stop them but they would not listen. Buxton called his askaris 2 and killed some murran. Then they agreed and dug the road. Kimoruai was not there, he had been taken away by Buxton to his home. Kimoruai did not want them to fight. He told them not to, but, because of the hard work, they did not obey him. . . . The fight was caused by that cruel man Buxton. The Maasai and the Europeans had an oath not to fight and Buxton ignored it.

B: Interview with Senjura ole Nchoe – January 1983

The fight broke out when the government told them to dig the road from Narok to Mau. . . . [Il Diegi] started to dig and the murran joined them and were told to dig. The murran did not want to dig the road. They collected a few of the leaders of the murran to join [Il Diegi] in digging the road. Il Diegi were following behind the murran and the murran cleared the road ahead. There was a big cedar tree left still standing and Il Diegi cried out against it: "The murran have left this big tree for us to cut down; we are dead." The murran heard the outcry from ahead and they thought that the Europeans were beating their seniors. 3 They ran to their manyatta and brought out their weapons. Buxton was camped at Rotian. He heard the cries of Il Diegi and the war cries of the murran. He got on his horse and came up. On the way, he met the first murran and he went back at a gallop. A sword and club were thrown at him. He drew up the askaris. When they saw the murran advancing the askaris shot at them and killed three. The murran in front prevented those behind from coming [forward], so Buxton was able to go down the road to Narok with his wife. That is how the fight was.

[Senjura then describes negotiations between the murran and the colonial administration]

[At a meeting] the murran told Buxton that they hated digging the road and that they had not planned to fight. It was just that they had heard the seniors shouting and had thought that the askaris were beating them. Those seniors, when the fight broke out, went to the camp. The seniors told Buxton that it was true about the shouting because the murran were working ahead of them. So Buxton said: "Let us stop fighting and make peace. But let us go back [to Narok] because the [Officer in Charge] is coming ..." Then they could tell [him] what they disliked. . . .

[The murran were taken to Narok--to court--and the administration had already decided what they would do, which was to enroll the murran as Tribal Police]

Kimoruai was there at the manyatta. He was preparing for the Eunoto and Buxton thought that perhaps he was the one refusing them Eunoto [ie delaying the ceremony] because, as you know, laibons are consulted about the Eunoto. So Kimoruai was taken [away] to his own place. He was not inciting the muran. Anyone who says so is lying: he was not. Kimoruai just want to look after the murran so that he would be given cattle. He did not give them any charms to fight. It depends on how much medicine they take in the forest. 4 The charms of a laibon can do nothing to a murran. It is only medicine in the forest that makes him brave. . . . There was rivalry between right and left hand [circumcision groups]. The seniors were contemptuous of the left because, they said, they were very young. But when they had [retired as murran], who could despise them as they were all becoming elders then? Il Diegi were taunting [Il Kidotu] and even now, if they have been drinking, they still do. . . . It's just a joke – not serious now. But they were friendly when they were digging the road because they were one [age set]--only the names are different.

The elders wanted the murran to dig the road. They discussed it and agreed on it. Ole Galishu and ole Kotikosh were giving the orders. Ole Galishu liked the murran but did not want them to stay [murran] any longer without retiring. He had forced Il Diegi to have Eunoto while they were still [young initiates]; and after Eunoto some of them had built another manyatta. . . . Ole Galishu wanted to end murranhood completely. He wanted just a few days of murranhood and then they should settle down and become elders. . . .

[Senjura then describes disagreements between the chiefs over whether murran should retire early and whether they should be allowed to have manyattas. To force Il Diegi to retire, Ole Galishu had pressured their spokesmen into going though the final retirement ceremony in secret and in their fathers' camps.]

Ole Galishu wanted them to [retire] early to lessen the trouble that they might cause. Il Diegi caused trouble because they were many. They could have gone on a raid and finished people if they had been allowed to. They went [as small raiding groups] on more than one occasion, but not [as a major war party]. . . . Ole Galishu was ol piron of Il Diegi [and Il Kidotu] 5 and the other sponsors agreed with him. . . . They agreed because Ole Galishu was olaigwanani kitok and ruled them. 6 No one would go against what he said because it was the spokesman speaking.