Talk:Argentine Civil Wars

Overview first tentative proposal

Overview

The first Federalist leader in the Platine Region was José Gervasio Artigas, who opposed the centralist governments in Buenos Aires that followed the May Revolution, and created instead the Federal League in 1814 among several Argentine Provinces and the Banda Oriental (modern-day Uruguay). In 1819, the Federal armies rejected the centralist Constitution of the United Provinces of South America and defeated the forces of Supreme Director José Rondeau at the 1820 Battle of Cepeda, efectively ending the central government, and securing Provinces' sovereignty through a series of inter-Provincial pacts. A new national Constitution was proposed only in 1826, during the Presidency of Unitarian Bernardino Rivadavia, but it was again rejected by the Provinces, leading to the dissolution of the National Government the following year.

Federalist Buenos Aires Governor Manuel Dorrego took over the management of the foreign affairs of the Provinces, but he was executed in 1828 by Unitarian General Juan Lavalle, who commanded troops dissatisfied with the negotiations that ended the War with Brazil. The following year, Juan Manuel de Rosas, leader of Buenos Aires Federalists, defeated Lavalle and was elected to office by the Legislature. To counteract these developments the Unitarian League was created by General José María Paz in 1830. The 1831 Federal Pact between Buenos Aires, Entre Ríos and Santa Fe Provinces opposed a military alliance to the League and ultimately defeated it during 1832, its former members joining the Federal Pact into a loose confederation of Provinces known as the Argentine Confederation. Although the Unitarians were exiled in neighboring countries, the Civil War continued for two decades.

Buenos Aires Governor Juan Manuel de Rosas exerted a growing hegemony over the rest of the country during his 1835-1852 Government and resisted several Unitarian uprisings, but was finally defeated in 1852 by a coalition Army gathered by Entre Ríos Federalist Governor Justo José de Urquiza, who accused Rosas of not complying with Federal Pact provisions for a National Constitution. In 1853, a Federal Constitution was enacted (the current Constitution of Argentina, through ammendments) and Urquiza was elected President of the Argentine Confederation. However, on the aftermath of 1852 Battle of Caseros, the Province of Buenos Aires had seceded from the Confederation. In 1859, after the Battle of Cepeda the State of Buenos Aires rejoined the Confederation, although it was granted the right to make some ammendments to it. Finally, after the 1861 Battle of Pavón, Buenos Aires took over the Confederation.

The following federal governments fought the weaker Federalist and Autonomist resistances in the countryside until the 1870's. The last Autonomist rebelion in Buenos Aires was quelled in 1880, leading to the federalization of Buenos Aires city and the estabilization of the Argentine State and government through the National Autonomist Party

--IANVS (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Check

I wrote: "In the early 19th Century the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata,which consisted of a part of modern Northern Argentina, Bolivia and the whole of Uruguay broke up into the Argentine Confederation, Uruguay and The Republic of Buenos Aires. What is now known as the "Argentine Civil Wars" began as a conflict between the Argentine Confederation and the Republic of Buenos Aires which were closely connected by culture and trade."

Certainly I could have added Paraguay and Bolivia into the list of fragments. Surely the secession of the Republic of Buenos Aires was the start of the conflict.

The current text makes it seem as if the civil war were just a provincial matter with the United Provinces being identical to modern Argentina. 86.4.27.128 (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my... where should I begin? Let's see:

• You talk as if Bolivia, Uruguay, the Argentine Confederation and the State of Buenos Aires appeared all at the same time and for the same conflict.
• "Surely the secession of the Republic of Buenos Aires was the start of the conflict." Well, that says it all. Just for you to know, the civil war began almost half a century before Buenos Aires seceded from the Confederation.
• Paraguay was not lost during the civil wars, but during the war of independence, when Belgrano failed to defeat Velazco, and Paraguay became an isolated province.
• Uruguay was not lost during the civil wars, but during a conventional war (state vs. state) against Brazil
• Bolivia was not lost during any military conflict involving Argentina. It stayed a royalist land during the war of independence, that Argentina could not liberate, and it was finally liberated and turned into modern Bolivia when it was liberated by Sucre, an ally of Bolívar who came from the North
• "The current text makes it seem as if the civil war were just a provincial matter with the United Provinces being identical to modern Argentina." Yes. The current text says that because that's what was happening. Cambalachero (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion will be held at User talk:86.4.27.128#Argentina, as this topic was raised by this user at several pages at once. Cambalachero (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have continued the discussion at my Talk page but consider the following text from Wikipedia - shouldnt you correct it?: "In 1813, the new government in Buenos Aires convened a constituent assembly where Artigas emerged as a champion of federalism, demanding political and economic autonomy for each area, and for the Banda Oriental in particular.[19] The assembly refused to seat the delegates from the Banda Oriental however, and Buenos Aires pursued a system based on unitary centralism.[19]

Consequently Artigas broke with Buenos Aires and besieged Montevideo, taking the city in early 1815.[19] Once the troops from Buenos Aires had withdrawn, the Banda Oriental appointed its first autonomous government.[19] Artigas organized the Federal League under his protection, consisting of six provinces, four of which are now part of Argentina.[19]" 86.4.27.128 (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not prepared to talk about the NPOV of several articles at once at the address you specified. Please talk about them here where they belong. See below 86.4.27.128 (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV New start

1. The story starts with a statement that:

"The main antagonists were, on a geographical level, Buenos Aires Province and the other provinces of modern Argentina, and on a political level, between the Federal Party and the Unitarian Party."

So the ordinary reader immediately has a picture of modern Argentina extending to Tierra Del Fuego being involved in civil wars. Is that the correct territory or did the wars occur when Argentina was a different place? How would you word the article to show that the wars described in the article started in the United Provinces of South America which is a very different geographical entity from modern Argentina? Please suggest a way of correcting this problem.

Please can we tackle this problem first.

2. There is a second problem. To the outsider it appears as if some of the Argentine provinces became very nearly independent before 1831. They had their own foreign policies and even launched their own wars. It is common for large countries to describe the early history of their parts as internecine struggles between entities that have always been a single unified whole. (China and Tibet, the USSR and the Ukraine etc). This is a political point of view. A balanced article would describe the extent to which these countries were independent. In particular the State of Buenos Aires had two periods, one before 1832 and the other mid-century when it was acting as an independent country. This is the nature of civil wars, they often split large countries into parts that join together again. If the provinces had not become nations why did they need a Federal Pact to reunite? I would request that the article explores the extent to which the various smaller states that fought in the civil wars became countries, with their own foreign policies, economic control and wars and the act of reunification between the states in the Federal Pact. Please can we tackle this second problem separately from the first.

Please do not respond to this point with "you do not understand, you are an idiot" or similar. What I am pointing out is that the civil wars appear to be about the degree of autonomy of the states but nowhere does the article describe the extent of this autonomy. The article appears to have the POV that the states were merely upstart provinces. 86.4.27.128 (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I'm tired of this, so I won't try to explain things anymore. Do you challenge the United Provinces or the Argentine Confederation being predecesor states of Argentina? Point a Reliable source, a history book by some reputed historian, that backs those ideas you are proposing, or the discussion will end right here and now. Cambalachero (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Please can we tackle the first problem first. This second problem, the degree of autonomy of the states before 1832, is the most contentious. Returning to the first problem, do you agree that the geographical position and extent of the country(ies) involved should be described so that the unwary reader does not get misled into believing that these events occurred in the whole geographical area that is modern Argentina? 86.4.27.128 (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Tentative model for upgrading the related Template

--IANVS (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)