general

For Gran Colombia, see D. Bushnell, The Santander Régime in Gran Colombia (Newark, N.J., 1954); J. M. Restrepo, Historia de la revolución de la República de Colombia en la América meridional, 8 vols. (Bogotá, 1942–50); R. M. Barak and R. Díaz, Resumen de la historia de Venezuela desde el ano de 1797 hasta el de 1830, 2 vols. (Bruges, 1939). Also very useful for its collapse are two volumes by C. Parra-Pérez, Marino y la independencia de Venezuela, 4 vols. (Madrid, 1954–60), vol. 4, and La monarquía en la Gran Colombia (Madrid, 1957). C. A. Gosselman, Informes sobre los estados sudamericanos en los anos de 1837 y 1838 (Stockholm, 1962) and M. M. Lisboa, Barão de Japura, Relación de un viaje a Venezuela, Nueva Granada y Ecuador (Caracas, 1954), a description of a journey in 1852–3, are valuable accounts of the whole area. A useful contemporary series of constitutional studies is J. Arosemena, Estudios constitucionales sobre los gobiernos de la América Latina, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (Paris, 1878).

venezuela

J. V. Lombardi et al., Venezuelan History: A Comprehensive Working Bibliography (Boston, 1977), is indispensable. So is the excellent Diccionario de Historia de Venezuela, 3 vols. (Caracas, 1989), published by the Fundación Polar under the direction of Manuel Pérez Vila. All its entries carry bibliographical notes.

The following collections of documents also serve the period well: P. Grases and M. Pérez Vila (eds.), Pensamiento político venezolano del siglo XIX, 15 vols. (Caracas, 1960–2); T. E. Carillo Batalla (comp.), Historia de las finanzas públicas en Venezuela, 23 vols. to date (Caracas, 1969–); Biblioteca de la Academia de la Historia, Las fuerzas armadas de Venezuela en el siglo XIX, 12 vols. to date (Caracas, 1963–); C. Gómez R. (ed.), Materiales para el estudio de la cuesti´on agraria en Venezuela (1829–1860): Enajención y arrendamiento de tierras baldías (Caracas, 1971); R. J. Velásquez (introd.), Decretos del poder ejécutivo de Venezuela por el Despacho del Interior y Justicia, 1831–1842 (Caracas, 1973); A. L. Guzmán, Causa célebre por su iniquidad de la supuesta conspiración del redactor de ‘El Venezolano’ Antonio L. Guzmán en 1846, 6 vols. (Caracas, 1884).

Two recent compilations offer an entry to Colombian history in these fifty years. A. Tirado Mejía, director, assisted by J. O. Melo and J. A. Bejarano, Nueva historia de Colombia, 6 vols. (Bogotá, 1989) and J. Jaramillo Uribe, J. G. Cobo Borda and S. Mutis Durán (eds.), Manual de historia de Colombia, 3 vols. (Bogotá, 1978–9).

For descriptions of the country in the 1880s, see M. Cané, En viaje, 1881–1882 (Paris, 1884); E. Rothlisberger, El Dorado (Bogotá, 1963); A. Hettner, Viajes por los Andes colombianos, 1882–1884 (Bogotá, 1976); R. Gutiérrez, Monografías, 2 vols. (Bogotá, 1920–21). A later work of exceptional value is P. J. Eder, Colombia (London, 1913), and the diary of the Bolivian novelist, historian and diplomat Alcides Argüedas, La danza de las sombras, new ed. (Bogotá, 1983) describes politics and society at the end of the 1920s.

The occasional writings of Rafael Núñez are collected in La reforma política en Colombia, 7 vols. (Bogotá, 1946–50). The writings of Miguel Antonio Caro exist in various compilations apart from the Obras completas, 8 vols. (Bogotá, 1918–45). A new edition is in the course of publication by the Instituto Caro y Cuervo, and this is complemented by publications of his correspondence, much of it erudite but some of it political, and by volumes of constitutional studies and speeches. Of the correspondence, see especially E. Lemaitre (introd.), Epistolario de Rafael Núñez con Miguel Antonio Caro (Bogotá, 1977), especially valuable because Núñez’s instructions that on his death his archive should be thrown into the sea were carried out.

The Corporación Editora Nacional is in the course of publishing the Nueva historia del Ecuador (Quito, 1988–), planned in fifteen volumes under the general editorship of E. Ayala Mora. Vols. 8, 9 and 10 cover the period 1870–1930. The basic historical bibliography remains R. E. Norris, Guía bibliográfica para el estudio de la historia ecuatoriana (Austin, Tex., 1978).

The following contemporary accounts deserve mention: J. Kolberg, Nach Ecuador (Freiburg, 1876); C. Weiner, América pintoresca: Descripción de viajes al nuevo continente (Barcelona, 1884); E. Festa, Nel Darien e nell’Ecuador, Diario de viaggio di un naturalista (Turin, 1909); R. Enock, Ecuador (London, 1914); M. Sáenz, Sobre el indio ecuatoriano y su incorporación al medio nacional (Mexico, D.F., 1933).

On political history, see E. Ayala Mora, Lucha política y origen de los partidos en Ecuador (Quito, 1978); H. Malo and E. Ayala Mora (eds.), Ecuador 1830–1930, Tomo 1, Política y sociedad (Quito, 1980) (the two subsequent volumes deal with art and culture, and economics); L. Alexander Rodríguez, The Search for Public Policy: Regional Politics and Government Finances in Ecuador, 1830–1940 (Berkeley, 1985); J. L. Mera, La dictadura y la restauración en la República del Ecuador (Quito, 1982); and I. Robalino Dávila, Orígines del Ecuador de hoy, 7 vols. (Puebla, Mexico, 1948–70), a series of well-documented politico-biographical studies.

Three works whose principal focus is on later years are useful for this earlier period are: O. Hurtado, El poder político en el Ecuador (Quito, 1977); R. Quintero, El mito delpopulismo en el Ecuador (Quito, 1980); G. Drekonja et al., Ecuador de hoy (Bogotá, 1978).

The basic bibliographical reference is J. V. Lombardi et al., Venezuelan History: A Comprehensive Working Bibliography (Boston, 1977). Also important is the Diccionario de historia de Venezuela, published by the Fundación Polar under the direction of M. Pérez Vila, 3 vols. (Caracas, 1988). Two modern short histories are J. V. Lombardi, Venezuela (New York, 1982) andj. Ewell, Venezuela (London, 1984).

The political history of the period 1870–1930 can be studied in M. Picón Salas et al., Venezuela independiente: Evolutión politica y social, 1810–1960 (Caracas, 1962), and the later years in R. J. Velásquez et al., Venezuela moderna: Medio siglo de historia, 1926–1976, 2nd ed. (Caracas, 1979). Up until the year 1890 the relevant volumes of F. González Guinán, Historia contemporánea de Venezuela, 15 vols. (Caracas, 1909–25) are still most valuable. Three collections of documents are particularly useful: P. Grases and M. Pérez Vila (eds.), Documentos que hicieron historia (Caracas, 1862); N. Suárez Figueroa, Programas politicos venezolanos de la primera mitad del siglo XX, 2 vols. (Caracas, 1977); R. J. Velásquez (ed.), El pensamiento político del siglo XX: Documentos para su estudio (Caracas, 1983– ; two series so far). See also M. V. Magallanes, Los partidos políticos en la evolutión venezolana (Caracas, 1973).

A book on British relations with Latin America cannot avoid addressing the Falklands question directly. It may become wearisome to revisit themes that became over-familiar in 1982 and 1983, but we have to remind ourselves that this spectacular breakdown in our relations with a major Latin American republic came about in some small part through British failures and through a change in Britain's position in the region. The failures can be recalled by a simple list: the eyes not on the ball, ‘Micawberism’, the ‘wrong signals’, the reluctance of frontbenchers in the major parties to grasp a minor but thorny issue, the assumption that our order of priorities would somehow always prevail, a forgetfulness about anniversaries… The best analysis that has been attempted since the war has been Michael Charlton's radio series, Little Platoon, which surely deserves to be published before general oblivion descends. The change in Britain's position to which I refer is simply stated, though often overlooked. Though it was concerns of naval strategy and British naval supremacy that established us in the Islands in the first place, both briefly and partially in the years 1765–74, and finally in 1833,lt was surely Britain's importance to Argentina (as trading-partner and investor) that played, along with the Royal Navy, a major role in ensuring that this peculiar and long-running dispute was for nearly 150 years peacefully conducted. It was not in Argentina's interest to sharpen it over-much. Since the Second World War those interests which weighed against the more forceful pressing of their claim were progressively weakened.

The articulate inhabitants of the Republics of Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela in the half century from 1880 to 1930 – their second half-century of independent existence – usually expressed themselves rather more cautiously on the subject of progress than their contemporaries in more fortunate parts of the world: ‘In the political life of all peoples progress is slow’, wrote the leaders of the dissident wing of Colombian conservatism in 1896, ‘as with the tides – to follow the thought of a well-known English writer [Arthur Hugh Clough] – the waves alternately advance and fall back, but the land conquered is always greater than the land lost; there is a constant advance.’ To another Colombian conservative, Miguel Antonio Caro, the advance was never clear to the participants: ‘The progress of ideas is mysteriously mixed into human history. The conflict of principles is interwoven with the struggles of parties, and fighting in one band or another, through individual or collective interest, men serve or oppose the cause of civilization, frequently without any aim or consciousness of doing so.’

Armed conflict in this part of the world, endemic in the nineteenth century, persisted into the early years of the twentieth century. The Colombian ‘War of the Thousand Days’ ended in 1902 with the treaties of Neerlandia and Wisconsin, in which the liberal Generals Rafael Uribe Uribe and Benjamin Herrera respectively admitted defeat in a future banana-growing centre and on board a US warship. Sporadic uprisings in Venezuela persisted for some years after the defeat of the last major armed revolt, the Revolución Libertadora of 1903.

Military and diplomatic necessity had made the vice-royalty of New Granada, the captaincy-general of Venezuela and the audiencia of Quito form one republic – the Republic of Gran Colombia – at independence. Its purpose was soon served, however, and its transience was apparent well before Bolívar's death in December 1830. The old imperial administrative divisions were not always clear, not always consistent in all branches of affairs, but they were supported by both common sense and local feeling. Distances were too great, provincial identity too strong, for government from Bogotá to last for long after final victory over the Spanish forces. There were no strong economic ties between the three provinces. Already by the end of the colonial period a sense of distinct identity was felt not only by the elite, but by a far wider section of opinion. As the early federalisms of the ‘Patria Boba’ era showed, these loyalties were more easily felt for a smaller compass than for that of the particular republic that was to emerge in 1830, but the larger entity did have some support in opinion, as well as in imperial tradition and in the geography of possible control. The common soldiers of the Venezuelan plains showed as early as 1816 what they thought of General Santander, calling this Bogotá-educated native of Cúcuta a ‘reinoso futudo’; General Santander reciprocated this distrust, and both as vice-president and later in opposition to Bolívar, many of his actions and utterances looked forward to a separate New Granada.