Simon Bolivar's Character Analysis

One of the challenges that emerged for Simon Bolivar on his way to leadership was the fact that liberalism lacked the majority support in colonial Latin America. Bolivar, like other revolutionaries, such as Francisco Miranda, struggled to get the support of most Venezuelans because of the stigma the term “liberal” had in colonial Venezuela. Being a liberal was associated with having French ideals, which naturally defied the Spanish rule. John Charles Chasteen actually states this when describing Francisco Miranda’s failed attempt to invade Venezuela. In his book, Americanos: Latin America’s Struggle for Independence, he states “the outcome of Miranda’s 1806 expedition shows that ‘French ideas’ alone could not create movements for independence
in America” (38). This demonstrates that the majority of Venezuelans were loyal to the Spanish rule and did not support his French ideals of revolution. The mere fact that the town of Coro left before he even got there say a lot about how they felt towards the idea of a revolution. In fact, most of the colonial population of Latin America was virtually conservative when it came to the way society was structured, even when the Peninsular War was happening. During the French invasion of Spain, the common sentiment in Venezuela, as well as the rest of Latin America, was of loyalty to Fernando VII. However, there was also starting to emerge the notion that Americanos did not need to obey the Spanish juntas; they only obeyed the king. The creation of juntas in Latin America were all constituted in the name of Fernando VII, including Venezuela. Bolivar, in many occasions, had to wear the mask of Fernando and play along with the majority in order to move towards independence. Eventually, the hectic situation of establishing juntas and not being recognized by Spain would lead to civil wars. This resulted challenging to Bolivar because he wanted Venezuela, and virtually all of America, to remain free of “Spanish tyranny”, which to him was the reason why “common people” lacked “civil education” and could perhaps explain the lack of support during the early years of the republic (184).

Another challenge Bolivar faced in order to leadership was the many battles that he and his army underwent in order to gain independence of Spain.
After the fall of the first republic, Bolivar had to take extreme actions against europeos in order to “prevent Spain from using Venezuela as a platform for reconquering New Granada” (100). Bolivar threatened “immediate execution of all europeos who bore arms in the service of Fernando VII”. Additionally, Bolivar’s proclamation of War to the Death “promised to never execute americanos, even if they fought against the republic” (101). This demonstrates that after the failure that was the first republic, Bolivar felt that Miranda’s ideals were the problem with the republic. Bolivar now wanted to take a more radical approach-- to execute all europeos that served Fernando VII. This also demonstrates the extent in which he was willing to go for the sovereignty of Venezuela. The fact that he only wanted to execute europeos and not americanos only shows how he now wanted to take a different approach and reframe the way the matter was being executed. The conversation needed to be reframed as “americanos versus europeos” if Venezuela wanted to get rid of Spanish colonialism. Naturally, this was a challenge for Venezuela because independence movements are not usually smooth and tranquil processes. They often times require bloodshed in order to achieve that state of sovereignty. In the case of Venezuela, there was not only a civil war
taking place, but they also had to deal with king Fernando VII sending a reconquest expedition to America in order to enforce rule. Chasteen states, “As thousands of Spanish troops arrived to finish the reconquest of America, the conflict became more purely one of americanos versus europeos-- a conflict that, in the long run, the cause of America couldn’t lose” (122). The notion of us and them was what marked the actual movement in independence. The idea that it was americanos versus europeos became more defined during the period from 1812-1815. Before, Americanos, were blindly loyal to king Fernando VII, but as the years progressed, and Spain’s situation became more unstable, the loyalty to Fernando was not enough to keep Americanos like Simon Bolivar compliant with the government.

And, even after establishing the republic of New Granada, Bolivar struggled with keeping track of the other regions he had also revolutionized and also lead.
As time progressed, Bolivar started to encounter disagreements with Vice President Santander and an old Venezuelan ally, Jose Antonio Paez. On one hand, Bolivar had the risky idea of creating an Andean Federation that would unite everything from “Mexico to Chile and Argentina (165). In addition, “to being president of Colombia (which included Venezuela and Ecuador at this point), Bolivar had also been named dictator of Peru by the country’s new national assembly, and his ever-loyal Sucre was now president of Bolivia” (165). All of this demonstrates how Bolivar’s ambitious ideas were not only risky, but also were undemocratic. Bolivar was all for social and racial equality for all americanos, but his presidency gave little role to americanos, featuring, a “lifetime presidency, with each president to name his successor, and a lifetime, hereditary vice presidency” (164-5). Ultimately demonstrating how independence not always brought stability and fairness to all individuals as it promised. Moreover, Bolivar also struggled to keep Santander and Paez happy with his plans. Santander, did not agree with Bolivar’s ideas of forming an Andean Federation and even rejected Bolivar’s constitution. Additionally, he had also “gained the upper hand politically” during Bolivar’s absence (168). Paez, on the other hand, wanted Venezuela
to become independent. All of this conflict involved Bolivar to constantly be back and forth with his allies about his political projects.