Simon Bolivar is a sneaky coward. US pseudo-national hero

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Simon Bolivar is the most famous and famous of the leaders of the war of independence of the Spanish colonies in America. His army freed Venezuela, Colombia Audiencia Quito (present-day Ecuador), Peru and Upper Peru, named after him Bolivia, from Spanish domination.

In Venezuela, he is officially considered the Liberator (El Libertador) and the father of the Venezuelan nation. For the past twenty years, Venezuela has been ruled by the left, who call themselves "Bolivarians" - followers of the ideas of the Liberator. Cities, provinces, squares, streets, monetary units of Venezuela and Bolivia are named in his honor. In approximately the same spirit, they write about the life and work of Simon Bolivar in other countries, including Russia. In Moscow, near Moscow State University, there is a square named after Simon Bolivar with a foundation stone on the site of the future monument, and in the courtyard of the Library of Foreign Literature there is his bust. However, in Paris, a monument to Bolivar stands in an incomparably more pretentious place - the Cours-la-Rennes city park on the banks of the Seine, next to the Pont Alexandre III. And in Washington, a monument to Bolivar stands in the very center of the capital …

Why Bolivar was canonized in Latin America is understandable: after the expulsion of the Spaniards, the young countries needed national heroes, and which of them could become the most revered, if not a commander who liberated several countries from the Spaniards at once? Russia, France, the United States and other countries honor the Liberator for a trivial reason: to please Latin Americans by showing respect for their history.

But not everyone and not always felt reverence for the Venezuelan hero. In 1858, in the third volume of the New American Cyclopaedia, a biographical article about Simon Bolivar, written by Karl Marx himself, appeared. Latin America, neither before nor after the writing of this article, was in the field of view of the interests of the founder of Marxism, since it was not part of Europe. The stormy events of the War of Independence from Spain in 1810-26. Marx considered it a provincial feudal front, which was used for their own purposes by the British capitalists.

Marx himself, in a letter to F. Engels, explained the writing of an article about Bolivar as follows: “ It was too annoying to read how this most cowardly, vilest, most pitiful villain is glorified as Napoleon I. (V. 20, p. 220; 1858-14-02). I must say that Marx did not use such harsh formulations, perhaps, in relation to any other figure.

Soviet researchers were in a difficult position. On the one hand, there is the opinion of the founder of the “all-conquering doctrine”. On the other hand, for a Hispanic person, incl. Marxist, Bolivar was and remains a saint. Therefore, the attitude of Marx to the figure of the Liberator in Soviet times was hushed up, but after the fall of socialism it became possible to simply declare Marx a fool who did not understand anything in Latin America. So, in the fundamental work of Russian Latin Americanists the following is written: “His only article about Bolivar Bolivar y Ponta (while the actual surname of the Liberator was Bolivar y Palacios) from the very title to the last line demonstrates only the absolute ignorance of Marx about both the war of independence itself and the role of Simon Bolivar in it (E. A. Larin, S. P. Mamontov, Marchuk N. N. History and culture of Latin America from pre-Columbian civilizations to the beginning of the 20th century, Moscow, Yurayt, 2019).

With all the author's respect for the venerable Russian scientists and complete disrespect for Karl Marx, the founder's point of view looks convincing, and the opinion of his critics is an unreasonable attack on him, especially since this attack is not substantiated by anything.

Marx's article is purely descriptive. There is not a word about the socio-economic reasons for the events so beloved by him: it simply describes Bolivar's campaigns, victories and defeats. And, I must say, there are no falsifications, distortions or outright lies in it. A dry set of facts, which are confirmed either by documents or by numerous evidence and not containing analysis, cannot “demonstrate the absolute ignorance of Marx,” as Russian Latin Americanists claim. At the same time, in their criticism, in terms of the degree of harshness, they are not inferior to Marx himself: if he calls Bolivar a "scoundrel," then his opponents declare Marx an ignoramus.

If we abstract from the correspondence polemic of Marx with the Russian professors, and turn directly to the War of Independence of Latin America and to the figure of Bolivar, it is necessary to take into account the following. A war of liberation was inevitable: the Spanish colonial oppression of Latin America, preventing the vast region from developing, was in itself reason enough for an uprising. Bans on trade between the colonies and with other countries hurt the quality of life of Hispanics, and the legal inequality of Creoles (Spaniards born in the colonies) with the Spaniards was ridiculous and humiliating, and they turned out to be the most susceptible to anti-Spanish sentiments. The immediate reason for the uprising was the capture of Spain by Napoleon I. As a result, the Spanish colonies lost contact with the outside world, they had nowhere to sell goods and nowhere to get them, and on their own they could only produce food, clothing and footwear for the poor classes and the most primitive tools labor (such as machetes and axes, but guns, pistols and even sabers - could no longer).

These problems were painful for the Creoles, who constituted 20-25% of the population, but did not affect the 75-80%, which consisted of Indians, Negroes (mainly slaves), and mestizos and mulattos who were outside the official structure of society, i.e. who were marginalized. Therefore, the War of Independence was the work of Creoles. This is currently not denied by anyone, incl. opponents of Marx. One of them, NN Marchuk, writes: “The royal administration … singled out, though not all, but many Indian peoples into a special and very protected by despotic laws class. In this way, she sought to preserve them and gradually, in the process of prolonged acculturation, bring them up to the level of the Spaniards and Creoles and integrate them into colonial society as an independent and equal ethnos. On the contrary, the equalizing onslaught of the Creole elite, who through the mouths of the forerunners of the immediate destruction of class barriers and the introduction of equality for the Indians, had the goal of destroying their original way of life (communal forms of land tenure and mutual aid traditions), expropriating the communes and eliminating the Indian ethnos as a whole, improving its breed through crossbreeding …

It is not surprising, therefore, that the picture of the Creole-Indian brotherhood in the War of Independence is contradicted by real historical facts. For example, the German scientist Alexander von Humboldt, who visited in 1799-1804, i.e. on the eve of the War of Independence, a number of Spanish American colonies testify that the Indians treated the Spaniards better than the Creoles. Not only the English historian J. Lynch, but also foreigners who lived in Peru during the War of Independence, testify that the royalist army consisted mainly of Indians. … In New Granada, both in 1810-1815, and in 1822-1823. in the role of Vendée it turned out to be mainly the Indian province of Pasto. … In the fight against the Vendée Indians, the revolutionaries also used the scorched earth tactics. …

It is obvious that the liberation struggle of Negro slaves is as much in line with the national aspirations of the Creole bourgeoisie, as well as the liberation movement of the Indian peasantry. Apparently, there is no particular need to prove that, like the Indians, Negro slaves fought primarily with their immediate oppressors…. These oppressors were for the most part represented by Creole slave owners, including such heroes of the war of independence as Simon Bolivar (Marchuk NN The place of the masses in the war of independence.

The mestizo population of Venezuela - Llanero - until 1817 actively supported the Spaniards - moreover, it was the striking force of the Spanish army in this country. Llanero defended a free life in the savannahs (llanos), and the right to use these lands granted to them by the king, while the Creoles intended to divide them into their own private domains, and the llanero would have to either work for the owners or vegetate in the urban slums.

Thus, the anti-Spanish war was by no means a nationwide war: Bolivar could count on the support of only whites, and this is about 1/4 Venezuelans and 1/5 Novogranadians (Colombians), but … a significant part of them were either Spaniards or Creoles loyal to Spain.

Creole revolutionaries were guided by the ideals of the American and French revolutions and intended to create a non-estate liberal republic in Venezuela. Since the beginning of the 19th century, their leader was Francisco Miranda, who tried to rely on the USA, England, France and Russia in the struggle against Spanish colonialism. Miranda tried to attract other Latin Americans who were in Europe to participate in the fight against Spain - incl. and Bolivar, but he refused. Miranda was stubborn: he even became a general in the French revolutionary army - his division took Antwerp during the revolutionary wars. However, France could not help the Creole revolutionaries, but in England Miranda was able to hire a ship and an armed detachment that landed in Venezuela in 1805. This expedition failed, but in 1808 Spain collapsed under the blows of Napoleon, and in 1810 Venezuela revolted … Only after the victory of Miranda's troops over the Spaniards did Bolivar join him. Why? Only Bolivar himself could answer this question. However, given that he was one of the richest oligarchs in the country, with close ties to the highest administration of the captain-general, it can be assumed that the republican and liberal aspirations of Miranda and his comrades were alien to the future Liberator. His father left Bolivar “258 thousand pesos, several plantations of cocoa and indigo, sugar factories, cattle-breeding estates, copper mines, a gold mine, more than ten houses, jewelry and slaves. His [Bolivar Sr.] could be classified as one of the dollar billionaires "(Svyatoslav Knyazev" The historical lot fell to him: what ideas the legendary South American revolutionary Simon Bolivar fought for ", Russia today, July 24, 2018).

At first, Bolivar was promoted to the ranks of the leaders of the anti-Spanish army thanks to his enormous wealth and connections in the Venezuelan elite. His transformation into the supreme leader happened as a result of the most vile betrayal: in July 1812 the Spaniards defeated the Venezuelan rebels, and Bolivar arrested Miranda and gave him over to the Spaniards, for which he received the right to leave Venezuela. The devoted leader and real leader of the Venezuelan revolution died in a Spanish prison. Bolivar arrived in Neva Granada, where the patriots strengthened, with the help of the Novo Granada rebels, returned to Venezuela and took Caracas. Marx mentioned in his article that the Liberator entered the capital "standing in a triumphal chariot, which was carried by twelve young women from the most noble families of Caracas" (this fact is documented). Such is the manifestation of republicanism and democracy … A few months later, Bolivar's army was defeated by the brutal hordes of Llaneros, who were fighting under the Spanish banner: they mercilessly slaughtered, robbed and raped the Creoles. Bolivar fled to New Granada again.

In 1816, Spain, having somewhat recovered from the Napoleonic Wars, finally sent troops to Latin America (from 1810. The interests of the metropolis there were defended only by local militias - mostly Indians and mestizos), but Pablo Murillo's corps numbered only 16 thousand people, and he had to re-conquer vast areas from California to Patagonia. Murillo landed in Venezuela and quickly occupied it (obviously, the Creoles, after Bolivar's triumph with the girls harnessed to the carriage, and the atrocities of the Llanero did not really mind the return of the colonialists), after which he fell on New Granada and also gained the upper hand. Bolivar (on an English ship) fled to Jamaica, then to Haiti, where he received military assistance from President Petion in exchange for Bolivar's promise to free slaves in Venezuela (for some reason, such a thought had never occurred to him). In Venezuela, here and there rebel detachments held out, but their forces were insignificant, and they had no prospects of defeating the Spaniards.

In 1816, a 24-gun ship arrived from England in Haiti under the command of Luis Brion, a merchant from the Dutch island of Curacao who took part in the Venezuelan War of Independence. He delivered 14,000 rifles with ammunition to a small detachment of emigrants led by Bolivar - a huge amount for Latin America at the time. Historians modestly note that Brion acquired both a powerful ship and weapons for one and a half divisions … at his own expense. Bolivar landed in the Spanish Guayana - a sparsely populated area at the mouth of the Orinoco, gathered forces there and from there began his victorious march - across all Venezuela, to New Granada, then to the Audiencia Quito (Ecuador), then to Peru. And everywhere he won victories. How did this become possible, if before that he constantly suffered defeats?

In an extremely weak propaganda film Libertador (Venezuela-Spain), Bolivar, wandering around the world (England, Haiti, British Jamaica), constantly encounters an Englishman who plays the role of Mephistopheles, offering the Liberator assistance in exchange for all sorts of privileges for the British. He, of course, proudly refuses, he still receives help (even from the film). This picture is inserted into the film for a reason: even Bolivar's apologists cannot completely deny irrefutable facts.

Bolivar's forces, which cleared the Spaniards from the entire north and west of South America, Marx describes as an army "numbering about 9,000 people, one third composed of highly disciplined British, Irish, Hanoverian and other foreign troops". He is not entirely right: the victorious army of Bolivar at the beginning of the victorious campaign consisted of 60-70% European mercenaries. These units were officially called the British Legion.

The expedition was financed by British bankers and merchants with the approval of the government. During the war, there were about 7 thousand European mercenaries in the ranks of the Liberation Army. All the victorious battles of the rebels - at Boyac (1819), Carabobo (1821), Pichincha (1822) and, finally, the decisive battle at Ayacucho (1824), after which the Spanish rule in the region came to an end, were won not by local revolutionaries, but by veterans of Napoleonic wars, which, in general, did not care about Latin American problems and the ideas of Bolivar.

After the Napoleonic Wars, in Great Britain alone, there were 500 thousand demobilized soldiers with vast experience (the wars lasted more than 20 years) who had nothing to live on. The "Venezuelan patriots" were commanded by British colonels Gustav Hippisley, Henry Wilson, Robert Skin, Donald Campbell and Joseph Gilmore; only officers under their command were 117. Of course, the few Spaniards (more precisely, Indians and mestizos, armed with machetes and homemade spears, under the command of Spanish officers, who mostly did not have European combat experience) could not cope with such forces.

In literature, including Soviet and Russian, these mercenaries are often referred to as volunteers, emphasizing their sympathy for the revolutionary ideas of the leaders of the uprising. But there were only a few ideological fighters among the thousands - such as Giuseppe Garibaldi, who fought, however, not in Venezuela, but in Uruguay, and Tadeusz Kosciuszko's nephew, who fought in Bolivar's army. But they, too, received a salary from the British, so it would be a stretch to reckon with volunteers.

The Spaniards lacked not only soldiers and competent officers, but also weapons. Spain almost did not produce it, but the British sold for a penny whole mountains of weapons accumulated during the Napoleonic wars. The Latin American rebels had funds to buy it, and in 1815-25. the British sold 704,104 muskets, 100,637 pistols and 209,864 sabers in the region. The rebels paid generously in gold, silver, coffee, cocoa, cotton.

The British have always sought to undermine the position of their longtime adversary - Spain - and gain access to the huge Latin American market. And they achieved their goal: having financed the War of Independence and ensuring the victory of the rebels by sending mercenaries (who, if they had stayed at home, unemployed and only able to fight, would have become a huge social problem), they got everything. The young states of the region, destroyed during a 16-year brutal war, disunited and seized by anarchy, fell into financial dependence on Great Britain for several decades. Whether it was good or bad for them is another question (in any case, they became responsible for themselves, and the Spanish primitive exploitation was definitely less profitable and more cruel than dependence on the British).

In 1858, when Marx wrote his article, all this was well known. Like numerous examples of Bolivar's personal cowardice, cruelty and meanness - he repeatedly fled from the battlefield, abandoned his troops at a difficult moment, shot his generals who either did not agree with him or could compete with him. It was also known that in every city where he entered with the troops, a virgin was brought to him - the custom of a real slave owner, but among more or less educated Latin Americans, and even more so in Europe, this did not arouse sympathy for the Liberator. The democratic and liberal circles did not like the well-known desire of Bolivar to proclaim himself the emperor of Latin America. An open desire for one-man tyranny, reliance on the "inner circle", contempt for democratic norms, the appropriation of enormous wealth and land - all this ultimately led to the removal of Bolivar from Power. And there was no force to support the Liberator. He pushed the elite and the educated part of the population (after the war was not numerous) by the arbitrariness and habits of either the eastern ruler, or the tribal leader. The common people were completely indifferent to him, because, in addition to the abolition of slavery, the people received nothing, and even the freed slaves turned out to be unemployed, powerless, outcasts excluded from society. His victorious army, basically, having received money, returned to their native Bristol, Dublin or Frankfurt, and there were no soldiers in their homeland ready to protect the former commander.

All of the above does not mean at all that the War of Liberation in Latin America was the work of the British capitalists: it was inevitable. Among the leaders of the liberation movement were remarkable patriots who cared about the interests of their peoples, and not about personal power, satisfaction of their instincts and enrichment - such were the Venezuelan Francisco Miranda, Argentinean Jose San Martin, Colombian Antonio Nariño, Chilean Bernardo O'Higgins and others.

However, in Latin America, they were all overshadowed by the largely exaggerated, mythologized figure of Simon Bolivar - far from the prettiest of the leaders of the Liberation movement in the region. In his homeland, Venezuela, the cult of the Liberator is inflated to truly grandiose proportions: he is credited with dignities that he was deprived of, social and political ideas that were alien to him. An entire country is named in his honor - Bolivia, although he has never set foot on its land (is not the fact that Bolivia has remained the most backward and unfortunate country in South America with an unfortunate name since its inception?).

These are the grimaces of history. In many countries, not the most worthy characters were recorded as national heroes.