What was simon bolivars job

She also is the former book editor for The Washington Post , and her book The Writing Life collects her essays on how writers think and work. Further, her writing includes two critically acclaimed novels set in Peru, Cellophane and Lima Nights , and the script for the recent film Girl Rising.

Arana graciously discussed her biography and the legacy of Bolivar by telephone from her office at the Library of Congress in Washington, D. Robin Lindley: Congratulations on your sweeping new book on Simon Bolivar. What prompted your foray into history with this magisterial biography? Did you see a need for a new portrait of Bolivar? Marie Arana: I have been steeped in history for all of my life and for a good bit of my career even though it was a crypto-occupation with history for me.

I was very aware of how you build one and make one work. Going on to be books editor at the Washington Post , history was one of my favorite genres and I often reviewed it and paid particular attention to it. I also served on several non-fiction and biography prize juries, and so had considerable exposure to the genre. I was drawn to Bolivar because I was trying to find one person who captured a good sweep of Latin American history in one story, and so would allow me to bring North American readers to Latin American in the most engaging manner.

There are so few North Americans out there who truly understand the history or have read much about it. When I sat down and tried to think of the one person whose story most affected the region in terms of its history and personality, the one I kept coming back to was Simon Bolivar.

There were many reasons for this. For one thing, he changed the Spanish language. His writing is free of stuffy Spanish locutions, maybe because he was at war, in a hurry, and writing three or four letters at a time. It was a different way of communicating; certainly different from anything that was being produced in printed works at the time. He also changed the history of a territory all the way from Panama to Bolivia.

He became, for me, the history, the language, the very personality of Latin America. He was this great, valiant, historic personality who also happened to be funny, smart, engaging, who loved to dance, and loved women. He was in many ways the kind of person Latin Americans aspire to be. And you have a personal connection to the history.

Could you talk about your family connection and your perception of Bolivar when you were a child in Lima? And I remember that there were three portraits hanging prominently in the living room of that house.

They were stern, brooding images of my ancestors. He was the first to fall. He had charged before anyone else and was killed before anyone else. Across from him was a wan young woman, staring at him day after day in that living room. She turned out to be the daughter of the Spanish brigadier general. She was born after he was killed, because when he went off to fight that battle, his wife had been expecting her.

That wistful young woman ended up marrying the third person on the wall, a young patriot soldier who also had fought at the battle of Ayacucho. Which is to say, he fought against the Spanish general, and married his daughter sixteen years later.

So here I am, this child of warring factions. It happened in the United States with families that fought the Civil War on both sides.

But for me, it was a very visible and present thing. I saw those faces every day and they fascinated me. The battle of Ayacucho became a mythic event for me. And so, Bolivar was very much on my mind as I grew up, as was the Argentine independence leader Jose de San Martin, and the whole business of revolution even into the twentieth century.

Everyone was aware of how Spanish you were or how Peruvian you were. Nobody here talks about how English or American you are. Lafayette admired Bolivar and they corresponded. He loved being called the George Washington of South America.

But Bolivar was a polar opposite of George Washington. I never grew up thinking he was anything like Washington. He was as singular a figure as George Washington. And Bolivar was not particularly loved in Peru. In the process of writing this biography, I have come to admire and respect him.

But I grew up in a country that resented him because, in the course of liberating Peru, he actually reduced it. Before the revolution, Peru was grand and sprawling.

It had been the heart of South America when it was a colony. It was rich and important, the power center of the empire. Bolivar called Peru the land of gold and slaves. But when Bolivar liberated Peru, he shrank it. Peru went from being a great hub to being a republic among many others, and its power was reduced drastically. Certainly my father was not a fan of Bolivar. So he went begging to Bolivar, and Bolivar essentially said that there was not room for both of them in Peru.

What are some of the salient things North Americans should know about Bolivar? Thank you so much. The one thing to remember is that these two regions sprang from very different histories, very different territories. I have a great interest in her development, but I lack adequate information respecting her present state and the aspirations of her people.

I greatly desire to know about the politics of each province, also its peoples, and whether they desire a republic or a monarchy; or whether they seek to form one unified republic or a single monarchy? If you could supply me with this information or suggest the sources I might consult, I should deem it a very special favor. Generous souls always interest themselves in the fate of a people who strive to recover the rights to which the Creator and Nature have entitled them, and one must indeed be wedded to error and passion not to harbor this noble sentiment.

You have given thought to my country and are concerned in its behalf, and for your kindness I am warmly grateful. The role of the inhabitants of the American hemisphere has for centuries been purely passive. Politically they were nonexistent. We are still in a position lower than slavery, and therefore it is more difficult for us to rise to the enjoyment of freedom. Permit me these transgressions in order to establish the issue.

States are slaves because of either the nature or the misuse of their constitutions; a people are therefore enslaved when the government, by its nature or its vices, infringes on and usurps the rights of the citizen or subject.

Applying these principles, we find that America was denied not only its freedom but even an active and effective tyranny. Let me explain. Under absolutism there are no recognized limits to the exercise of governmental powers. The will of the great sultan, khan, bey, and other despotic rulers is the supreme law, carried out more or less arbitrarily by the lesser pashas, khans, and satraps of Turkey and Persia, who have an organized system of oppression in which inferiors participate according to the authority vested in them.

To them is entrusted the administration of civil, military, political, religious, and tax matters. But, after all is said and done, the rulers of Isfahan are Persians; the viziers of the Grand Turk are Turks; and the sultans of Tartary are Tartars.

China does not bring its military leaders and scholars from the land of Genghis Khan, her conqueror, notwithstanding that the Chinese of today are the lineal descendants of those who were reduced to subjection by the ancestors of the present-day Tartars.

How different is our situation! We have been harassed by a conduct which has not only deprived us of our rights but has kept us in a sort of permanent infancy with regard to public affairs. If we could at least have managed our domestic affairs and our internal administration, we could have acquainted ourselves with the processes and mechanics of public affairs.

We should also have enjoyed a personal consideration, thereby commanding a certain unconscious respect from the people, which is so necessary to preserve amidst revolutions. That is why I say we have even been deprived of an active tyranny, since we have not been permitted to exercise its functions. Americans today, and perhaps to a greater extent than ever before, who live within the Spanish system occupy a position in society no better than that of serfs destined for labor, or at best they have no more status than that of mere consumers.

Yet even this status is surrounded with galling restrictions, such as being forbidden to grow European crops, or to store products which are royal monopolies, or to establish factories of a type the Peninsula itself does not possess. To this add the exclusive trading privileges, even in articles of prime necessity, and the barriers between American provinces, designed to prevent all exchange of trade, traffic, and understanding. In short, do you wish to know what our future held?

So negative was our existence that I can find nothing comparable in any other civilized society, examine as I may the entire history of time and the politics of all nations. Is it not an outrage and a violation of human rights to expect a land so splendidly endowed, so vast, rich, and populous, to remain merely passive? As I have just explained, we were cut off and, as it were, removed from the world in relation to the science of government and administration of the state.

We were never viceroys or governors, save in the rarest of instances; seldom archbishops and bishops; diplomats never; as military men, only subordinates; as nobles, without royal privileges.

In brief, we were neither magistrates nor financiers and seldom merchants—all in flagrant contradiction to our institutions. Emperor Charles V made a pact with the discoverers, conquerors, and settlers of America, and this, as Guerra puts it, is our social contract.

The monarchs of Spain made a solemn agreement with them, to be carried out on their own account and at their own risk, expressly prohibiting them from drawing on the royal treasury.

In return, they were made the lords of the land, entitled to organize the public administration and act as the court of last appeal, together with many other exemptions and privileges that are too numerous to mention. The King committed himself never to alienate the American provinces, inasmuch as he had no jurisdiction but that of sovereign domain. Thus, for themselves and their descendants, the conquistadores possessed what were tantamount to feudal holdings.

Yet there are explicit laws respecting employment in civil, ecclesiastical, and tax-raising establishments. These laws favor, almost exclusively, the natives of the country who are of Spanish extraction. Thus, by an outright violation of the laws and the existing agreements, those born in America have been despoiled of their constitutional rights as embodied in the code. The Americans have risen rapidly without previous knowledge of, and, what is more regrettable, without previous experience in public affairs, to enact upon the world stage the eminent roles of legislator, magistrate, minister of the treasury, diplomat, general, and every position of authority, supreme or subordinate, that comprises the hierarchy of a fully organized state.

When the French invasion, stopped only by the walls of Cadiz, routed the fragile governments of the Peninsula, we were left orphans. Prior to that invasion, we had been left to the mercy of a foreign usurper. Thereafter, the justice due us was dangled before our eyes, raising hopes that only came to naught.

Finally, uncertain of our destiny, and facing anarchy for want of a legitimate, just, and liberal government, we threw ourselves headlong into the chaos of revolution. Attention was first given to obtaining domestic security against enemies within our midst, and then it was extended to the procuring of external security. Authorities were set up to replace those we had deposed, empowered to direct the course of our revolution and to take full advantage of the fortunate turn of events; thus we were able to found a constitutional government worthy of our century and adequate to our situation.

The establishment of juntas of the people marks the first steps of all the new governments. These juntas speedily draft rules for the calling of congresses, which produce great changes. Venezuela erected a democratic and federal government, after declaring for the rights of man. A system of checks and balances was established, and general laws were passed granting civil liberties, such as freedom of the press and others.

In short, an independent government was created. New Granada uniformly followed the political institutions and reforms introduced by Venezuela, taking as the fundamental basis of her constitution the most elaborate federal system ever to be brought into existence. Recently the powers of the chief executive have been increased, and he has been given all the powers that are properly his.

I understand that Buenos Aires and Chile have followed this same line of procedure, but, as the distance is so great and documents are so few and the news reports so unreliable, I shall not attempt even briefly to sketch their progress. Events in Mexico have been too varied, confused, swift, and unhappy to follow clearly the course of that revolution. We lack, moreover, the necessary documentary information to enable us to form a judgment.

The Independents of Mexico, according to our information, began their insurrection in September , and a year later they erected a central government in Zitacuaro, where a national junta was installed under the auspices of Ferdinand VII, in whose name the government was carried on. The events of the war caused this junta to move from place to place; and, having undergone such modifications as events have determined, it may still be in existence.

It is certain that one or both of these two great men exercise the supreme authority in that country. And recently a constitution has been created as a framework of government. In March the government, then residing in Zultepec, submitted a plan for peace and war to the Viceroy of Mexico that had been conceived with the utmost wisdom. It acclaimed the law of nations and established principles that are true and beyond question. The junta concluded its proposal by warning that if this plan were not accepted rigorous reprisal would be taken.

This proposal was received with scorn: no reply was made to the national junta. The original communications were publicly burned in the plaza in Mexico City by the executioner, and the Spaniards have continued the war of extermination with their accustomed fury; meanwhile, the Mexicans and the other American nations have refrained from instituting a war to the death respecting Spanish prisoners.

Here it can be seen that as a matter of expediency an appearance of allegiance to the King and even to the Constitution of the monarchy has been maintained. The national junta , it appears, is absolute in the exercise of the legislative, executive, and judicial powers, and its membership is very limited.

Events in Costa Firme have proved that institutions which are wholly representative are not suited to our character, customs, and present knowledge. In Caracas party spirit arose in the societies, assemblies, and popular elections; these parties led us back into slavery. Thus, while Venezuela has been the American republic with the most advanced political institutions, she has also been the clearest example of the inefficacy of the democratic and federal system for our newborn states.

In New Granada, the large number of excess powers held by the provincial governments and the lack of centralization in the general government have reduced that fair country to her present state. For this reason, her foes, though weak, have been able to hold out against all odds. As long as our countrymen do not acquire the abilities and political virtues that distinguish our brothers of the north, wholly popular systems, far from working to our advantage, will, I greatly fear, bring about our downfall.

Unfortunately, these traits, to the degree in which they are required, do not appear to be within our reach. Orphaned at the age of 9, the boy early showed traits of independence and a strong will. Sent to Madrid in to complete his education, he came under the tutelage of an uncle who secured the proper instruction for the young aristocrat, which included his acquaintance with the decadent court of Charles IV and some of the noble families of Madrid.

In the couple went to Caracas, where after only 6 months of wedded life the young wife died. Expressions of unrest and rebellion already existed in Hispanic America, but it was not until that the independence movement disturbed the solid structure of the Spanish Empire. That year Napoleon occupied the Iberian Peninsula, deposed the Bourbon dynasty, and appointed his brother Joseph king of Spain. All the colonies refused to recognize the usurper but were divided about the policy they should pursue.

Some continued to adhere to the Spanish royal family, but others were bent upon independence and self-government. On April 19, , the Spanish captain general in Caracas was overthrown, and a junta of native citizens took over his duties. Three months later he was sent to London to obtain England's assistance, but his mission was a failure.

He returned to Venezuela, and was followed by Francisco de Miranda, a leader in the conflict with Spain. In July Venezuela cut its ties with Spain and proclaimed its independence, but this "First Republic" was a flimsy structure and soon came under counter revolutionary attack. He was appointed dictator but was soon faced with internal dissensions which led to civil war.