Historiography of the May Revolution facts for kids

Bartolomé Mitre wrote one of the first historical interpretations of the May Revolution.

The May Revolution was a super important event in Argentina's history. It's when Argentina started its journey to become a modern nation. Historians have been studying and writing about it since the mid-1800s, and they still do today!

All historians agree that the May Revolution was a huge turning point. They also agree that it had to happen in 1810. But they often disagree on a few things:

What were the main reasons for the Revolution?
Who were the most important leaders?
Did ordinary people support it, or was it just a few powerful individuals?
Was the loyalty to the Spanish king, Ferdinand VII, real, or just a trick to hide their plans for independence?

What We Know (and Don't Know) for Sure
How Historians Have Seen the Revolution
Big Disagreements
- Why the Revolution Happened
  - Important Documents
Groups Involved
See also

What We Know (and Don't Know) for Sure

Historians actually know most of the important facts about the May Revolution. Many details were written down at the time. The new government, called the Primera Junta, even shared these details to show how patriotic they were.

Because of this, historians usually don't argue about what happened. Instead, they argue about why it happened, what it meant, and what its results were. The way historians see the Revolution today isn't very different from how people saw it back then.

There are only a few things that aren't totally clear:

We don't have exact records of all the speeches and quotes from the Open Cabildo (a special meeting) or meetings with Viceroy Cisneros. The quotes we have were written down years later from memory or passed down by word of mouth.
Another mystery is the "Operations plan". This was supposedly a secret document written by Mariano Moreno. It was said to outline harsh ways for the Primera Junta to reach its goals. Some people think it's real because the Junta did some tough things, like executing Santiago de Liniers. Others think it was a fake document made by enemies of the Revolution to make it look bad in Europe.

Historians also discuss why a Junta (a governing committee) was first created with Viceroy Cisneros, instead of just following the Open Cabildo's original vote.

Historian Diego Abad de Santillán thinks it was a way to keep the Viceroy in power, even though the idea was voted down. He believes it was a try to stop the Revolution from growing.
Félix Luna thinks it was an effort to avoid more fighting. It was a middle-ground solution that gave something to everyone. Cisneros would stay, but he'd share power with the local leaders (criollos).

It's also not totally clear who decided who would be in the Primera Junta.

Cornelio Saavedra, who was president of the Junta, said in his memoirs that it was all thanks to the people. Some historians agree.
But others, like Félix Luna, think the Junta's members were too balanced to be just a random choice by the people. It had people from different political groups and ideas.
For example, Saavedra was a military leader respected by everyone. Juan José Paso, Manuel Belgrano, Juan José Castelli, and Mariano Moreno were lawyers who liked new ideas from the Age of Enlightenment. Juan Larrea and Domingo Matheu were Spanish businessmen. Miguel de Azcuénaga was a military man, and Manuel Alberti was a priest.
Historian Miguel Angel Scenna said that such a balanced group couldn't be by chance. It had to be a compromise between different groups.
Most historians agree that the British didn't choose the Junta members. There wasn't enough time, and no British people in Buenos Aires were important enough to do that.
It's also unlikely the military chose the Junta, even though Saavedra was president. Most members were civilians.

How Historians Have Seen the Revolution

The first people to write about the Revolution were the people who lived through it. They wrote memories, biographies, or diaries. But they weren't writing history books. They wanted to explain their actions, clear their names, or support certain ideas.

For example, Manuel Moreno wrote about his brother Mariano to spread good ideas about the Revolution in Europe.
Cornelio Saavedra wrote his autobiography to explain himself when people were questioning him.

These early writings often mentioned the British invasions as a key event before the Revolution. They were proud that the Revolution started peacefully. They also disliked the later Argentine Civil War. They saw the events as the people taking back their power from the king.

Early Historians

The first big history book about Argentina was Historia de Belgrano y de la Independencia Argentina by Bartolomé Mitre.

Mitre saw the May Revolution as a symbol of equality.
He thought it was a fight between modern freedoms and Spanish rule.
He believed it was an attempt to create a nation based on constitutional rules, not just strong leaders (caudillos).
Mitre also believed that the nation of Argentina existed before 1810, but it was controlled by Spain.

Esteban Echeverría saw the ideals of May as progress and democracy. Later, some historians would argue with this idea. They said that progress was more important than democracy at first, so society could become rich. This was called the "Possible Republic."

Mitre and Echeverría were part of the '37 Generation. These were romantic writers born around the time of the Revolution. They were active in politics and opposed the governor Juan Manuel de Rosas. They thought new ideas from Europe and the U.S. needed to be adapted to Argentina. They chose the May Revolution as the start of the nation because they didn't like Spanish or indigenous cultures.

New Historical School

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Argentina was growing with new industries and many European immigrants. A "New Historical school" emerged. They wanted to create a "national identity," and the May Revolution was a big part of this.

They discussed how much different causes of the May Revolution mattered.
They also debated whose actions were most important.
But all historians agreed that the May Revolution was the birth of Argentina.
They also thought it was bound to happen.

There was a small change in how they saw the Revolution. At first, "May Revolution" meant everything from May 1810 for decades. Later, it only referred to the events that removed Cisneros and created the Primera Junta. These historians also started to consider if there was strong popular support for the Revolution, or if it was just a few smart men.

Modern Debates

Around the time of the World Wars, liberalism (a political idea) became less dominant. New ideas like fascism and left-wing politics became important.

Ricardo Levene and the National Academy of History tried to make one official historical view, mostly following Mitre's ideas.
Left-wing historians disagreed. They started a "revisionist" movement, focusing on nationalism and anti-imperialism. They often studied other historical figures more than the War of Independence.
They saw the Revolution not as a fight between locals (criollos) and Spanish, but as a fight between new ideas (liberalism) and old-fashioned rule (absolutism).
A fascist writer, Hugo Wast, even said the Revolution was just a military takeover, with no involvement from the people.

Around the 150th anniversary of the May Revolution, the liberal and revisionist historians argued even more.

Senator J. Aníbal Dávila wanted old documents republished so that "anti-history" wouldn't confuse young people.
José María Rosa argued that the Revolution was carried out by ordinary people, and liberal historians had hidden this to change history. Rosa's ideas became very popular in Argentina.

By the 1970s, historians like Tulio Halperin Donghi and José Carlos Chiaramonte tried to offer a more balanced view. They looked closely at what was happening in Argentina and the world at the time. They explored all the choices the revolutionaries had, seeing the Revolution as one option among many.

Big Disagreements

Why the Revolution Happened

The May Revolution declared loyalty to Ferdinand VII of Spain.

The government created on May 25, 1810, said it was loyal to the Spanish king, Ferdinand VII, who was a prisoner of Napoleon. But historians disagree if this loyalty was real or not.

Since Mitre, many historians believe this loyalty was just a trick to gain real independence.

The Primera Junta didn't promise loyalty to the Spanish government still operating in Spain.
In 1810, it seemed unlikely that Napoleon would be defeated and Ferdinand would return.
The trick, known as the "Mask of Ferdinand VII", was to buy time. It would strengthen the independence movement without causing a big reaction, because it looked like they were still respecting the king.
This "mask" was supposedly used by the Primera Junta, the Junta Grande, and the First and Second Triumvirates.
The Assembly of Year XIII wanted to declare independence but couldn't due to other political fights. However, it removed mentions of Ferdinand VII from official papers.
The leaders after that were unclear about their loyalty until Argentina finally declared independence in 1816.

Britain also played a role. They liked the idea of trade with the region without Spain's control. But Britain was fighting France in Europe and was allied with Spain. They couldn't openly support independence movements in America because it would divide Spain's attention. So, they pushed for independence not to be declared openly.

Lord Strangford, the British ambassador, supported the Junta, but only if they stayed loyal to Ferdinand VII.
However, later conflicts between Buenos Aires, Montevideo, and Artigas caused disagreements among the British themselves.

Later historians, like Juan Bautista Alberdi, Norberto Galasso, Luis Romero, and José Carlos Chiaramonte, questioned Mitre's view. They had a different idea:

Alberdi thought the Argentine Revolution was part of a bigger Spanish American revolution, which was part of a Spanish revolution, which was part of a European revolution.
They didn't see it as a fight between independence and colonialism. Instead, they saw it as a fight between new ideas of freedom and old-fashioned rule (absolutism).
They believed the goal wasn't to cut ties with Spain, but to change the relationship. This would make it more like a civil war.
Points supporting this idea: Spanish people like Larrea and Matheu were in the Junta. Belgrano studied in Spain. José de San Martín fought for Spain against France for most of his life. When San Martín talked about enemies, he called them "royalists" or "Goths", never "Spanish".

These historians believe the Spanish revolution against absolutism got mixed up with the Peninsular War (against France). Many Spanish people thought Ferdinand VII supported new ideas because he opposed his father, who was an absolutist king.

So, revolutions in America (like the May Revolution) made in Ferdinand VII's name were trying to replace old absolute power with new, more modern ideas.
Even though Spain was fighting France, people still respected the ideas of the French Revolution (liberty, equality, fraternity).
These revolutions in America said they were against Napoleon, but they didn't face French attacks. Instead, Spanish armies fought each other over whether to keep the old order or create a new one.
This changed when Napoleon was finally defeated and Ferdinand VII returned to the throne. He brought back absolute rule and went after anyone with new ideas in Spain.
For people in South America, staying part of the Spanish Empire with a new relationship was no longer an option. They had to choose between returning to absolute rule or becoming independent.

Important Documents

Cornelio Saavedra wrote a private letter on June 27, 1811, to Juan José Viamonte. In it, he talked about the "Mask of Ferdinand VII" as a trick to keep England from declaring war on them.

Foreign countries, especially Britain, only ask that we use Ferdinand's name and hate Napoleon. These two things are why Britain isn't our enemy. Read the news that just came out in British newspapers (attached). They clearly say that the British court isn't forced by any agreement to support one part of the Spanish monarchy against another, because of disagreements about government, as long as they recognize their true king and oppose France's tyranny. So, if we didn't recognize Ferdinand, Britain would have the right or feel forced to support our enemies who do recognize him, and would declare war on us. The same if we didn't dislike Napoleon. What power does the small viceroyalty of Buenos Aires have to fight this strong enemy when it's just starting out? Why would it willingly attract this powerful outside enemy when it hasn't finished with the internal enemies that still bother us? With these strong reasons, the free citizen Zamudio wants us to shout, independence, independence. What's lost if we write "Ferdinand, Ferdinand" but our actions prepare the way for the Congress? The Congress is the only proper court that can and must decide the government we want, agreed upon by the deputies who will be there.

Also, the Congress of Tucuman released a statement in 1817, after independence was declared. It listed all the bad things Spain had done and past chances for independence that weren't taken. Once independence was openly declared, there was no need to pretend anymore. About the May Revolution, it said:

Meanwhile, we set up our government junta, similar to those in Spain. It was only temporary and in the name of the captive king Ferdinand. Viceroy Don Baltasar Hidalgo de Cisneros wrote orders to the governors to prepare for civil war and arm some provinces against others.

Groups Involved

The groups who supported the Revolution weren't all the same. They had different goals.

The progressive Criollos (people of Spanish descent born in America) and young people, like Moreno, Castelli, Belgrano, and Paso, wanted big political, economic, and social changes.
The military and government workers, led by Saavedra, just wanted to remove the Spanish from power and take their places and privileges.
Merchants and landowners cared most about economic decisions, especially whether to open trade with England.
Some groups even thought about replacing the Spanish government with the authority of Charlotte of Portugal or the British crown, but these ideas didn't go far.

These groups worked together to remove Cisneros. But once the Primera Junta was formed, their differences started to show.

No religious factors were involved in the Revolution. Both revolutionaries and royalists supported Catholicism. However, most church leaders were against the Revolution. In Upper Peru, royalists and religious authorities tried to say the revolutionaries were heretics. But the revolutionary leaders always tried to be fair about religious matters. For example, Mariano Moreno translated The Social Contract into Spanish, but he left out the parts that criticized religion. Priests and monks were divided by region: those in the "lower" provinces supported the Revolution, while those in Upper Peru stayed loyal to the king.