I.3.3 DIGITAL ARCHIVE 1052895
Colombian statesman José María Torres Caicedo (1830–1889) probably wrote La multipatria latinoamericana, the book from which these excerpts are taken, on the occasion of the fourth Inter-American Conference held in Lima in 1864–65. At that time, Latin American intellectuals promoted the notion of Pan Americanism while many of the newly independent countries in the region were, ironically, at war with each other. Torres Caicedo writes of the impossibility of “federating” the Latin American republics during their infancy. Instead, he recommends the formation of an American League. That is to say, he proposes a confederation of sovereign states that would belong to what he refers to as a Multi-Homeland (la multipatria). La multipatria latinoamericana was originally published in Paris [Rosa, Bouret et Cie., 1865]; these translated excerpts (chapters II, III, and XV) are from a more recent edition [Antonio José Rivadeneira Vargas, ed., La multipatria latinoamericana, Colección Lecturas de Bogotá (Bogota: Academia Colombiana de Historia, Instituto Distrital de Cultura y Turismo, 1989), 7–17; 96–103].
We have always fought the system of administrative centralization because if it exists, as [Frédéric de] Lamennais says: fulfillment is at the center and paralysis in the extremes. We favor the establishment of a municipal regime that allows all sections to fully exercise their rights, which grants them the free handling of their interests. Just as we oppose administrative centralization, we also fight against the federal system.
To federate is to unite, foederis, and where there is no disunity there is no need to unite. In Anglo-Saxon America, New England, Pennsylvania, New York, settled by Puritans, by Quakers, by business companies, etc., all people lived for many years under the rule of different laws, traditions, and customs. When they separated from the Metropolis, the different sections that constituted Anglo-Saxon America had to choose between two alternatives: to lead separate, absolutely independent lives and be exposed to struggles between States, thus appearing weak to the outer world; or else to unite under one non-national government, allowing each state to keep its own way of being, which they had exercised during several centuries of existence. Therefore, the decision was made to join those separate parts, to FEDERATE: E pluribus unum [out of many, one]. Anglo-Saxon America acted according to the law of necessity, thus following the etymological and historic meaning of the word to federate.
In Latin American States, all colonized in the same manner, ruled by identical laws, traditions, religion, what can be achieved by a federation that moves in the opposite direction. . . ? Unity becomes division, it becomes unhinged. There is no E pluribus unum, but ex uno plures [out of one, many].
The innumerable, small States of the ancient Germanic Roman Holy Empire were recast as the Rhine Federation in 1806, and took their current shape in 1815. Today, what do the diverse German peoples aspire to? To a union, to a centralized government with a decentralized administration.
If there is a part of the world where needs, traditions, and even long-held hatreds justify the acceptance of the federative system, it would be Italy; and we can well see how it has been struggling, with heroic perseverance, for national unity.
What were France and Spain before that great political unity which they have today was established? History teaches us, however, that these two nations have reached the excess of centralization. What was the motive that compromised the independence of Venezuela, establishing the bloody dictatorship of [José Tomás] Boves? How did the first civil uprisings start in New Granada at the dawn of its independence, and what has happened to that Republic since 1857? Why have there been so many scandals within the Latin American States? How did Mexico end up where it is today?
What political principle did [Juan Manuel de] Rosas proclaim, and why has so much blood been spilled in Argentina? Ask all those questions of the federalists and the entire world. Societies progressively marched from feudalism toward the constitution of a sovereign power held by kings, then by barons and kings, later by the royal power and the representative Chambers. The centralization in Europe has many defects; but the system is unquestionably good, useful, and necessary.
Federation in the countries of the New World spurs infinite ambition, incites local hatreds, weakens the love for a common homeland, creates obstacles to the unified action required of any government, increases sectional expenses thus increasing national expenses, keeps those newly created states in a constant uproar, organizes permanent local dictatorships. . . . Everywhere we see, as a sign of progress and civilization, the adoption of the same codes, currency, weights and measures, etc. In New Granada (today the United States of Colombia), that unity has been destroyed, and each former province, now a State, can and has adopted its own codes, civil as well as penal, business, etc., and has even denied extradition either from State to State or from Province to Province of convicted criminals who have committed the most horrendous crimes.
It is evidently not by adopting that system of political bosses, weakening the various political entities, turning each Province into a sovereign State, that the basis for creating a great American Confederation or League is achieved.
We repeat: the establishment of a wide and liberal municipal system, which is the basis of freedom, is the opposite of the federative system applied to Hispanic America.
People ask: What can Latin America do when those Republics have such an agitated existence and live in the midst of the convulsions of civil wars?
Let us repeat what was written elsewhere:
It is blatantly unfair to blame so acrimoniously the Republics of Latin America for their constant political convulsions when the old European nations are either at war or under an armed peace regime. The young Latin American Nations struggle and will keep on struggling to constitute themselves definitively, to find their center of gravity, to establish a solid and permanent harmony between rights and obligations, which is what characterizes free nations and fair governments.
But what do European powers, so advanced in civilization and age, do? When they are not subject to the horrors of civil war, which happens frequently, they destroy each other, or the stronger countries impose their laws on the weaker ones, thus shattering world peace—shedding their people’s blood—violating principles of morality and justice, and delaying the development of material goods. The latter constitute the essential condition for the supremacy of freedom, undemanding and easy life, delaying the fusion of races and the rule of universal harmony. At least the struggles of American nations originate, in most cases, for the supremacy of a principle. They start in order to establish certain bases for social organization, proving to a certain extent the vitality of their population, as well as their individuals, when they become more fully developed. But in Europe, those struggles exist, in general, among the strong nations that want to plunder the weak ones, competing for their territory, making their future existence impossible.
European interventions in America have those same aims.
Although civil wars in the Latin American States have some terrible traits, they are also noble and generous: they tend to elevate and consolidate in virgin areas of America, the temple of Order, Liberty, and Justice. European wars, wars between two States or among many at the same time, are wars spurred by ambition; their objective is almost always greed, and their impulse is the need to dominate. There are very few which, if not under the impulse of the law (since maintaining the balance of forces is a major aim), are at least not threats to the law: such as the case of Crimea [1853–56] and the glorious one of 1859. That one had only one defect: it solved nothing; the latter stopped in the middle of the road, and what is happening today proves that the evil could have been stopped at its source, and it was left standing instead.
As a final note to this article, we beg to reproduce here the general bases for unity which we published in 1861, which had the honor of being included in many European publications and almost all newspapers in Latin America.
We stated on February 15, 1861:
Today more than ever we need those Republics:
• To form a large Confederation in order to join forces and resources, and present to the world a more respectable presence.
In order to accomplish the above, the following, among other conditions, will have to be met:
• An annual meeting of a Latin American assembly. The citizenship of the children of all those States, who should be considered citizens of a common homeland, and enjoy in all of those republics the same civil and political rights;
• The adoption of a definite principle regarding territorial boundaries: starting with the uti possidetis [juris] of 1810;1 as an additional basis, admitting natural boundaries without excluding territorial compensations when an equitable delineation of disputed boundaries is required, but when it is more convenient for one State to own the territory as opposed to the other;
• The creation of a kind of American Zollverein (Customs Union),2 more liberal than the German:
• The adoption of the same codes, weights, measures, and currencies;
• The establishment of a supreme tribunal which decides amicably questions that arise between two or more confederate republics and which, whenever called for, enforces its sentences by force; a liberal system in the matter of postal conventions; establishing tax-exempt importation of dailies and periodicals, brochures, and books;
• The admission in substance, as valid and compulsory, of any public or private act in whichever of the confederate Republics;
• The establishment of a federal system concerning commercial matters, without excluding coastal shipping;
• The establishment of a uniform educational system, making elementary education free and compulsory;
• The consecration of the healthy principle of the freedom of conscience and tolerance of religious creeds;
• The consecration of contemporary principles as regards extradition of convicted criminals: enforcing extradition in cases of serious crimes, never for political crimes;
• The abolition of passports; the abolition of blockage systems; the abolition of the Letters of Trademarks, except in wars which may erupt among one or some of those Republics, or all those confederated, and some or several foreign powers;
• The establishment of a contingent of troops and resources for common defense;
• The establishment of the manner and terms leading to the declaration of casus foederis [case of the alliance];
• The adoption of the same principles in the matter of consular and business conventions to be held with foreign nations, and the nationality of the children of foreigners in those countries;
• The admission, not only of the principle that “the flag covers ownership” but also that foreign merchandise is free under enemy flag, except for war smuggling, limiting the articles considered under such contraband;
In this Organization it should be decided, making such decisions compulsory, that no Latin American state can cede any part of its territory, nor appeal for the protection of any outside power;
Within this organization, it should be decided that Latin American states must present, through their Ministers, a collective Note to the several European cabinets and to Washington, appealing for the application of the principle of saving weak nations, a principle recognized by all civilized nations, that a legitimate government is not responsible for the damage caused to foreigners by its factions, and that a foreigner, upon entering another country, is de facto subject to the ordinary laws and tribunals of that country, even more so if that individual establishes residency within it. It would also be necessary to present another collective Note against the untenable system of indemnity without just cause, as well as the practice introduced in some States, of not granting credit except to the diplomatic agents sent to America, in spite of the irrefutable documents often presented against claims by those agents.
It would be a requisite to collect all claims unjustly made or unduly paid by Latin American States; to publish in London or Brussels a paper in French advocating the rights and interest of those Republics; to make public the benefit to its industry and commerce; to favor immigration, etc.
. . .
In short, the Latin American Congress assembled today in Lima, has a tall order to accomplish, and we have no doubt that immense benefit will be derived from the deliberations of that organization, whose members are inspired by patriotism, prudence, and a spirit of great fairness.
It is now necessary to fight against the ideas of a few though fierce extremists and not allow such false and absurd ideas to take hold, ideas which tend to establish a marked opposition between America and Europe. Such ideas are anachronistic in this century when we talk so much about fraternity and solidarity; they are absurd vis-à-vis the press and commerce which unite and tighten connections. What is bad for one is bad for all.
America has already been conquered by civilization, and it needs old Europe which, despite its age has arts, industry, and science. Europe, in turn, needs America, which opens its markets, offers raw materials, offers fruitfulness and innovations unknown in Europe, as well as a hospitable population that is intelligent and generous, and advances in the middle of youthful convulsions; because it starts with confidence in the field of science, literature, and industry, as it opens its ports to all the nations of the world.
We will repeat here the statements we made in another article, which Mr. Carlos Calvo [SEE DOCUMENT I.2.1] did us the honor of quoting: “Latin America needs the intervention of Europe, not an armed intervention, but the noble and beneficial intervention which includes commerce, industry, the diffusion of ideas, and immigration. Latin America needs civilized Europe, and those States have shown to be as open to foreigners as any other nation in the world.”
We will close by quoting a statement by [Immanuel] Kant: “One of the conditions for enduring peace consists in the fact that the people’s rights are based on a federation of Free States. A right can only be confirmed and endure in a stable manner within a General Assembly of independent States, similar to the individuals who constitute each separate State.”
Paris, January 1, 1865
1
Uti possidetis juris is a principle in international law which holds that disputed properties remain in the hands of their final possessor at the end of a conflict. Uti possidetis juris 1810 is a provision cited in some Latin American constitutions that asserts that official Spanish rule ended in 1810 and that the boundaries demarcating the former colonies should be preserved. See Carlos A. Parodi, The Politics of South American Boundaries (Westport, CT: Praeger, 202), 5–6.—Ed.
2
The Zollverein or German Customs Union was established in 1819 by a coalition of German states that came together to manage customs policies and to protect and promote their respective economic interests.—Ed.