History 251
Latin American History II
First Writing Assignment

The first writing assignment is due at the beginning of lecture on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 [New Due Date]. Your paper should follow all the conventional formatting guidelines (i.e. typed; double-spaced; reasonable margins and fonts; stapled; numbered pages). Binders are not necessary. Late papers will be subject to the late policy stated in the syllabus.

After a decade worth of intermittent warfare against the royalist forces, on February 15, 1819, Simón Bolívar joined a group of fellow Venezuelan patriots, almost entirely creole men, who had assembled in Angostura (contemporary city of Cuidad Bolívar), to draft a new constitution for the independent Republic of Venezuela.

Refusing the title of Dictator and Supreme Chief of the Republic, Bolívar called upon his fellow patriots to draft a legal document to guide a new Venezuelan nation liberated from the yoke of colonialism.

The words and ideas contained in the speech at Angostura tell us that Bolívar was an educated, wealthy creole who had spent considerable time abroad and who continued to look to ancient civilizations, Great Britain, and the young United States of America for inspiration. However, his words and ideas also suggest that Bolívar was deeply concerned with what it meant to be an "American." Bolívar was equally concerned, and troubled, with the problem of building a politically stable and just American republic after three centuries of colonial rule and a protracted war for independence, fought by a broad cross-section of the former colonial society, including many non-creoles who might claim the rights of republican citizenship.

Carefully read through the Bolívar's Angostura Address, which is reprinted in its entirety in the El Libertador reading, pp. 31-53.

In a six-page paper, analyze Bolívar's speech. Your analysis should specifically address the following four topics:

1. According to Bolívar, what are the chief obstacles to liberty in the Americas? (Consider obstacles that Bolívar attributes to the legacy of the colonial system, those that he attributes to the wars for independence, and those obstacles that he attributes to the general concept of liberty.)
2. According to Bolívar, what are the dilemmas of being an "American"?
3. In light of the problems Bolívar identifies in the guarantee of liberty and the meaning of Americanness, what type of political system does he propose?
4. What are the limits of Bolívar's imagined Republic? (Consider how different the new Republic was to be from the colonial state; Consider the social groups and political aspirations that might be excluded from Bolívar's vision of "liberated" Venezuela.)

• In your thesis paragraph, briefly introduce the Angostura speech (i.e. who wrote it?; where was it delivered?; when?; under what circumstances?) and then outline your interpretation of the speech. Tell your reader the main points that you intend to argue in the paper.
• Thoughtfully consider how many of the challenges described in the Angostura address echo ideas and experiences expressed in "The Jamaica Letter" (1815), the "Decree for the Emancipation of Slaves" (1816) and other Bolivarian texts discussed in class.
• A strong paper will suggest how Bolívar's social standing, his cultural background, his political ambitions, and his experiences in the wars of independence influenced the tone and content of his speech.
• All students are encouraged to seek out Prof. Williams, Ricardo, or Sarah for guidance in writing well-organized and engaging papers. Outlines and/or rough drafts are always welcome.
• Consider making a visit to the Writing Center, 0125 Taliaferro Hall, Tel: 301-405-3785.

Most Importantly:

Do not simply summarize or repeat Bolívar's words. Analyze them. You may quote freely from the speech, but quotes should be used to illustrate and develop the analytical argument outlined in the thesis paragraph.
 

Example of mere summary:

In describing the post-independence Venezuelan state, Bolívar proposes a bicameral congress, with a hereditary senate whose members were to be drawn from the Liberators of the Republic. Stating, "the creation of a hereditary senate would in no way violate the principle of political equality," (pp. 42-43) Bolívar states that a hereditary senate was not part of a plan to establish a new nobility. He argues, instead, that the hereditary senate would be a guarantor of political balance between the government and the people.
 

Example of analysis:

In describing the post-independence Venezuelan state, Bolívar proposes a bicameral congress, with a hereditary senate whose members were to be drawn from the Liberators of the Republic. Although Bolívar states "the creation of a hereditary senate would in no way violate the principle of political equality," his position implies a certain tolerance for inherited, unequal privileges and positions of power. Ironically, this senate, whose membership would be passed along bloodlines, would retain elements of inherited privilege supposedly destroyed by the wars of independence. Moreover, Bolívar's descriptions of the hereditary senate as a guarantor of order implies a suspicion for certain key features of republican governmental systems, including popular sovereignty and direct governance. Thus, we have direct evidence that the "liberty" promised at Angostura was to be socially and politically limited.