Operating Systems 3rd Edition Nutt Solutions Manual

Operating Systems 3rd Edition Nutt Solutions
Manual download
https://testbankfan.com/product/operating-systems-3rd-edition-
nutt-solutions-manual/
Find test banks or solution manuals at testbankfan.com today!

Here are some recommended products for you. Click the link to
download, or explore more at testbankfan.com
Operating Systems 3rd Edition Nutt Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/operating-systems-3rd-edition-nutt-
test-bank/
Operating Systems 3rd Edition Deitel Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/operating-systems-3rd-edition-deitel-
solutions-manual/
Operating Systems Design And Implementation 3rd Edition
Tanenbaum Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/operating-systems-design-and-
implementation-3rd-edition-tanenbaum-solutions-manual/
Leaders and the Leadership Process Readings Self
Assessments 6th Edition Pierce Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/leaders-and-the-leadership-process-
readings-self-assessments-6th-edition-pierce-test-bank/

SOC 4th Edition Benokraitis Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/soc-4th-edition-benokraitis-test-bank/
Infants and Toddlers Curriculum and Teaching 8th Edition
Terri Swim Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/infants-and-toddlers-curriculum-and-
teaching-8th-edition-terri-swim-solutions-manual/
M Management 5th Edition Bateman Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/m-management-5th-edition-bateman-
solutions-manual/
College Algebra 6th Edition Dugopolski Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/college-algebra-6th-edition-
dugopolski-test-bank/
Customer Service Career Success Through Customer Loyalty
6th Edition Timm Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/customer-service-career-success-
through-customer-loyalty-6th-edition-timm-solutions-manual/

Childhood and Adolescence Voyages in Development 5th
Edition Rathus Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/childhood-and-adolescence-voyages-in-
development-5th-edition-rathus-solutions-manual/

Gary Nutt, Operating Systems 3/e
Instructor’s Solutions
©2004 «GreetingLine»
Chapter 9: High-Level Synchronization and Interprocess
Communication
Exercises
1. Here is one solution. Another one uses the monitor to encapsulate the resources rather
than just the entry and exit.
monitor sharedV {
public enter(int i) {set i busy;};
public exit(int i) {set i idle;};
};
p_0() {
...
enter(2);
access V_2;
exit(2)
...
}
p_1() {
...
enter(0);
access V_0
exit(0)
...
enter(2);
access V_2;
exit(2)
...
enter(0);
enter(2);
access V_0
access V_2;
exit(0)
exit(2)
}
p_2() {
...
enter(0);
access V_0
exit(0)
...
enter(1);
access V_1;
exit(1)
...
enter(0);
enter(1);
access V_0
access V_1;
exit(0)

exit(1)
}
p_3() {
...
enter(1);
access V_1;
exit(1)
...
}
2. Here is one solution.
semaphore s0 = 1, s1 = 1, s2 = 1;
...
P_simultaneous(...);
V_simultaneous(...);
p_0() {
...
P_simultaneous(s0, s1);
access V_0 & V_1;
V_simultaneous(s0, s1);
...
}
p_1() {
...
access V_1 & V_2;
...
}
p_2() {
...
access V_0 & V_2;
...
}
monitor semaphore {
private:
int count = 1; /* set to the initial value of the semaphore
*/
condition hold;
public:
P() {count--; if(count <= 0) hold.wait;};
V() {count++; hold.signal:};
};

4. Condition variables are just signaling semaphores (such as the full/empty semaphores
in the bounded buffer problem). The solution to this problem requires that you know
how mutual exclusion is implemented in the monitor. Then the condition variable
wait code must enqueue the thread and release the mutual exclusion. Similarly, the
signal code obtains mutually exclusive access to the monitor and dequeues a thread.
You will need to provide some guidance as to the amount of detail you want as an
acceptable solution to this problem. Here is some pseudo code (that has only been
debugged “by eye”):
struct monitor_t {
private:
semaphore mutex = 1;
int cv = 0;
<ADT data structures>
...
public:
proc_i(...) {
P(mutex);
<processing for proc_i>
/* CV wait */
cv--;
while(cv < 0) {
enqueue(self, cv_list);
setState(self, blocked);
V(mutex);
yield(); /* Call the scheduler */
P(mutex);
}
/* CV signal */
cv++;
if(cv <= 0) {
pid = dequeue(cv_list);
setState(pid, ready);
V(mutex);
P(mutex);
}
V(mutex);
};
...
};
5. The idea is to translate the solution for #4 into System V semaphores:
struct monitor_t {
private:
union semun {
int val;
struct semid_ds *buf;
ushort * array;
} arg;
arg.val = 1; /* Initial value of semaphore */
int mutex;
struct sembuf opns[1];

int cv = 0; /* You could use an event here, but it will be
* tricky releasing the mutex
*/
...
public:
monitor_t() {
mutex = semget(MY_MONITOR, 1, 0666|IPC_CREATE);
if(mutex < 0)
{
fprintf(stderr, "Semaphore not availablen");
exit(0);
}
if(semctl(id, 0, SETVAL, arg) < 0)
{
fprintf( stderr, "Unable to set semaphore valuen");
}
/* Set up the sembuf structure. */
opns[0].sem_num = 0;
opns[0].sem_flg = 0;
};
proc_i(...) {
/* P(mutex) */
opns[0].sem_op = -1;
semop(id, opns, 1);
/* CV wait */
cv--;
while(cv < 0) {
/* V(mutex) */
opns[0].sem_op = 1;
semop(id, opns, 1);
/* P(mutex) */
semop(id, opns, 1);
}
/* CV signal */
cv++;
if(cv <= 0) {
/* V(mutex) */
opns[0].sem_op = 1;
semop(id, opns, 1);
/* P(mutex) */
semop(id, opns, 1);
}
/* V(mutex) */
opns[0].sem_op = 1;
semop(id, opns, 1);
};
...

};
6. Here is the basic idea of a solution:
struct monitor_t {
private:
HANDLE mutex;
Char *mName = “mutexName”;
int cv = 0;
...
public:
monitor_t() {
mutex = CreateMutex(NULL, FALSE, mName);
};
proc_i(...) {
WaitForSingleObject(mutex, INFINITE); /* P(mutex */
/* CV wait */
cv--;
while(cv < 0) {
ReleaseMutex(mutex); /* V(mutex) */
WaitForSingleObject(mutex, INFINITE); /* P(mutex) */
}
/* CV signal */
cv++;
if(cv <= 0) {
WaitForSingleObject(mutex, INFINITE); /* P(mutex) */
}
};
...
};
monitor sleepy_barber {
private:
int number_of_customers = 0;
condition_variable haircut, sleepy;
public:
request_haircut {
number_of_customers = number_of_customers + 1;
if (number_of_customers == 1) sleepy.signal;
haircut.wait;
}

take_customer {
if (number_of_customers == 0) sleepy.wait;
number_of_customers = number_of_customers - 1;
haircut.signal;
}
}
The barber is a cyclic process of the form:
while (TRUE) {
sleepy_barber.take_customer;
cut_hair
}
Each customer has the form:
...
sleepy_barber.request_haircut
get_haircut;
...
8. An asynchronous send operation can be used in any situation in which the sending
process wishes to transmit information to a sender, but it does not care when the
message is received. In the SOR example, the central process can assign work to an
equation solver using an asynchronous send. (The centralized process will ultimately
have to synchronize the completion of the equation solutions by all the solvers, but
the allocation of work need not have synchronization.)
Suppose two processes, p_0 and p_1, cooperate with one another so that they
generally operate independently and concurrently, but they occasionally share
information by p_0 sending information to p_1; with a synchronous send, p_0 can
procede after its send operation with the assurance that p_1 has received the
information. This communication paradigm is used in remote procedure call
(described in detail in Chapter 17).
9. If a set of processes are working on a common problem, i.e., the work has been
partitioned and delegated to various processes, then the run time will be reduced if all
the processes can execute at the same time. This follows because a fixed amount of
work is divided, then two or more processes perform parts of the work simultaneously
(in a system with multiple processors). Blocking receive operations tend to make a
process wait for one or more other processes to "catch up," reducing the effective
amount of concurrency in the execution. However, as we have seen in various
examples in Chapters 8 and 9, concurrent operation on shared information means that
it is necessary to incorporate a synchronization mechanism to manage sharing -- a
factor that considerably raises the complexity of the software.
10. Condition variables are used to suspend a process while it is logically in a critical
section. In a user thread package, the programmer controls the scheduling of threads
within an address space (process). Therefore, the programmer can determine
situations in which a thread is in a critical section, yet needs another critical section,
and thus can suspend the thread from executing until the needed critical section can

become available. Notice that this is not generally possible at the process level, since
there is not parent to control the schedule and to suspend other processes.
11. The Mach C thread cthread_fork() is similar to UNIX fork() in that it creates a
new thread. It is different in that the thread is given a specific procedure where it will
begin execution (same address space, but a different location from the parent thread).
When the C thread terminates, there is no synchronization with the parent thread.
12. This solution (with minor edits) provided by Don Lindsay, Fall, 1995.
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
/* parent.c
*
* Example program by Don Lindsay
*
*
* This program uses the trapezoidal rule to integrate
* f(x) = 1/(x+1)
* on [0,2]. It does this by forking N processes, each of which
* does n/N trapezoids.
* The parent specifies tasks over N pipes, and recieves answers over one
* shared pipe.
* The parent reports the totalled area, and reports the elapsed integration
* time, ie excluding the setup time. The time is the average of many runs.
* This program must be run with N between 1 and 8, and n=64.
*
* Tested on Linux: portability unknown.
*
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <sys/time.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <unistd.h>>
#include <errno.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <math.h>
#define REPEAT (4000)
#define NUMSTEPS (64)
#define PATHNAME "./child"
#define PRINT if(debug)fprintf
#define PRINT2 if(debug>1)fprintf
extern char **environ;
#ifndef FALSE
#define FALSE 0
#define TRUE 1
#endif
typedef int Boolean;
/*typedef unsigned char u_char;*/
#define PIPE_IN (0)
#define PIPE_OUT (1)
int debug = 0;

int forkcount;
int pipes_to_child[8][2];
int pipe_from_child[2];
/****************************************************************
*
*/
void fatal( char *string )
{
fprintf( stderr, "FATAL ERROR: %sn", string );
exit(1);
}
/****************************************************************
*
*/
void system_fatal( char *string )
{
fprintf( stderr, "FATAL SYSTEM ERROR: ");
perror( string );
exit(1);
}
/****************************************************************
*
*/
void prompt()
{
fprintf( stderr, "TRY: parent N [-d]n" );
exit(1);
}
/****************************************************************
*
* Sets globals forkcount, debug
*/
void parse_my_args( int argc, char **argv )
{
if( argc < 2 || argc > 3 ) prompt();
if( argc == 3 ){
if( strcmp( argv[2], "-d" ) == 0 )
debug = 1;
else if( strcmp( argv[2], "-D" ) == 0 )
debug = 2;
else
prompt();
}
forkcount = atoi( argv[1] );
PRINT( stderr, "forkcount %dn", forkcount );
if( forkcount < 1 || forkcount > 8 ) fatal( "arg out of range" );
}
/****************************************************************
*
* Fork that many children.
* Leaves global pipes_to_child and pipe_from_child. These are the
* stdin and stdout of each child.
* Exits on error.
*/
void fork_solvers( int forkcount )
{
int i;
pid_t pid;
char *child_argv[2];
child_argv[0] = PATHNAME;
child_argv[1] = NULL;

if( pipe( pipe_from_child )) system_fatal( "Pipe" );
for( i = 0; i < forkcount; i++ ) {
if( pipe( pipes_to_child[i] )) system_fatal( "Pipe" );
PRINT( stderr, "about to forkn" );
pid = fork();
if( pid == 0 ) {
/* I am the i'th child. */
if( close(0))
system_fatal("Close1");
if( dup( pipes_to_child[i][PIPE_IN ])==-1)system_fatal("dup1");
if( close(1))
system_fatal("Close2");
if( dup(pipe_from_child[ PIPE_OUT ])==-1)system_fatal("dup2");
/* child's stdin and stdout are now the pipes */
execve( PATHNAME, child_argv, environ );
fprintf( stderr, "exec of "%s" failed:n", PATHNAME );
system_fatal( "Child" );
exit(1);
}
/* I am the parent */
if( pid == -1 ) {
system_fatal( "Fork Parent" );
}
}
}
/***************************************************************
*
* Expects globals pipes_to_child, pipe_from_child.
* Writes step requests to those pipes, and returns the sum of the results.
*/
float farm_out_work( int forkcount )
{
u_char out_buf;
float in_buf;
int in_buf_len = sizeof( float );
float area;
int i, child;
/* Try to get them all working by writing all before any reads */
for( child = 0, i = 1; i <= NUMSTEPS; child++, i++ ) {
if( child >= forkcount ) child = 0; /* wrap around */
out_buf = i;
if( write( pipes_to_child[child][PIPE_OUT], &out_buf,1)!=1)
system_fatal( "write" );
}
for( area = 0.0, i = 1; i <= NUMSTEPS; i++ ) {
if( read( pipe_from_child[PIPE_IN], &in_buf,in_buf_len)
!= in_buf_len )
system_fatal( "read pipe" );
PRINT( stderr, "parent: %d gets area = %gn", i, in_buf );
area += in_buf;
}
PRINT( stderr, "parent: %d gets area = %gn", i, in_buf );
return area;
}
/****************************************************************
*

*
*/
void kill_solvers( int forkcount )
{
int i;
char out_buf;
out_buf = 0;
for( i = 0; i < forkcount; i++ ) {
if( write( pipes_to_child[i][PIPE_OUT], &out_buf,1)!=1)
system_fatal( "kill write" );
}
}
/******************************************************************
*
* Returns system time in milliseconds.
*/
double get_sys_time()
{
struct timeval t; /* int fields tv_sec, tv_usec */
double time;
int result = gettimeofday( &t, 0 );
if( result ) {
fprintf( stderr, "error from gettimeofdayn" );
perror( "" );
exit(1);
}
PRINT( stderr, "%d %dn", t.tv_sec, t.tv_usec );
time = t.tv_sec * 1.e6 + t.tv_usec; /* in microseconds */
return time / 1000;
}
/****************************************************************
*/
main( int argc, char **argv )
{
double start, stop;
int i;
float area;
parse_my_args( argc, argv ); /* get forkcount */
fork_solvers( forkcount );
start = get_sys_time();
/* Must integrate many times to get a measurable amount of time. */
for( i = 0; i < REPEAT; i++ ) {
area = farm_out_work( forkcount );
}
stop = get_sys_time();
fprintf( stdout, "area is %gn", area );
fprintf( stdout, "time per integration is %g ms.n",
(stop-start)/REPEAT );
kill_solvers( forkcount );
exit(0);
}
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
/* child.c - to be invoked by "parent", forked integrator.
*
* Example program by Don Lindsay
*
*
* This program is used to integrate (via trapezoids) the function

*/
#define FUNC(x) (1/(x+1.0))
#define NUMSTEPS (64)
#define INTERVAL_LO (0.0)
#define INTERVAL_HI (2.0)
/* Reads 1-byte integers, one at a time, from stdin.
* A value in the range 1..NUMSTEPS causes a single trapezoid
* to be computed, and its area written (as a binary float) to stdout.
* Zero means quit: all else is a fatal error.
* Each trapezoid represents a 1/NUMSTEPS part of the INTERVAL.
*
* Tested on Linux: portability unknown.
*
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#define PRINT if(debug)fprintf
#define PRINT2 if(debug > 1)fprintf
extern char **environ;
typedef int Boolean;
/*typedef unsigned char u_char;*/
int debug = 0;
int forkcount;
/****************************************************************
*
*/
void fatal( char *string )
{
fprintf( stderr, "FATAL ERROR: %sn", string );
exit(1);
}
/****************************************************************
*
*/
void parse_args( int argc, char **argv )
{
if( argc != 1 ) {
fprintf( stderr, "Illegal arglist to child: %dn", argc );
exit(1);
}
}
/****************************************************************
*
*/
void system_fatal( char *string )
{
fprintf( stderr, "CHILD FATAL SYSTEM ERROR: ");
perror( string );
exit(1);
}

/****************************************************************
*
* Returns the area under f(x1)..f(x2) assuming f is linear between.
* Assumes x2 > x1.
* Expects macro FUNC.
*/
float trapezoid( float x1, float x2 )
{
float f1 = FUNC(x1);
float f2 = FUNC(x2);
return (x2-x1) * (f1+f2)/2.;
}
/****************************************************************
*
* Returns area of indexed trapezoid.
*/
float integrate( int index )
{
float x1, x2, deltax;
deltax = (INTERVAL_HI - INTERVAL_LO)/ NUMSTEPS;
x1 = INTERVAL_LO + index * deltax;
x2 = x1 + deltax;
return trapezoid( x1, x2 );
}
/****************************************************************
*/
main( int argc, char **argv )
{
int area_len = sizeof(float);
float area;
u_char buf;
parse_args( argc, argv );
for(;;) {
if( read( 0, &buf, 1 ) != 1 ) system_fatal( "read" );
PRINT( stderr, "child reads %d from pipe.n", buf );
if( buf == 0 ) exit(0);
if( buf > NUMSTEPS ) {
fprintf( stderr, "child: illegal %d read.n", buf );
exit(1);
}
area = integrate( buf-1 );
PRINT( stderr, "Child: area %d is %gn", buf, area );
if( write( 1, &area, area_len ) != area_len ) system_fatal( "write" );
}
}
13. Here is the quadrature problem using Mach C threads (with politically incorrect name
for the trapezoid solver code).
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
/* Trapezoidal Rule Quadrature using Mach C threads
*
* Use the following command to compile this file
* (assumed to be named trapezoid.c)
*
* trapezoid: trapezoid.o timer.o
* cc -g -o trapezoid trapezoid.o timer.o
*
* trapezoid.o: trapezoid.c

* cc -c trapezoid.c
*
*/
#include
/* #define TRUE 1 */
#define bottomRange 0.0
#define topRange 2.0
#define intervals 64
#define maxN 8
#define iLeft(i) 2*i+N
#define iRight(i) 2*i+N+1
/* Local function prototypes */
void solver(int);
/* Shared memory map
*
* Result from Solver 0
* Result from Solver 1
* ...
* Result from Solver N-1
* Left endpoint for Solver 0
* Right endpoint for Solver 0
* Left endpoint for Solver 1
* Right endpoint for Solver 1
* ...
* Left endpoint for Solver N-1
* Right endpoint for Solver N-1
*
* The memory descriptors follow ...
*/
float *shMem; /* Pointer to shared memory as floats */
char *cshMem; /* Pointer to shared memory as chars */
/* Locks for synchronization between solvers and master */
mutex_t resultLock[maxN];
mutex_t segLock[maxN];
extern int errno;
int N;
main (argc, argv)
int argc;
char *argv[];
{
cthread_t t_handle[maxN];
cthread_t cthread_fork();
float getTime();
float currentLeft, currentRight;
float length, result;
float startTime, stopTime;
int i, nAlive, solverNum;
unsigned lengthSM;

/* Get a value of N from the command line */
if(argc == 2)
{
N = atoi(argv[1]);
if (N > maxN)
{
printf("Usage: N is too largen");
exit(0);
};
}
else
{
printf("Usage: trapezoid Nn");
exit(0);
};
/* Initialize variables for the test */
result = 0.0;
length = (topRange-bottomRange)/(float)intervals;
currentLeft = bottomRange;
currentRight = bottomRange;
cthread_init(); /* Initialize the C threads package */
/* Create the shared memory */
lengthSM = 3*N*sizeof(float); /* See shared mem map above */
cshMem = malloc(lengthSM); /* Make the space be shared */
shMem = (float *) cshMem; /* Access the array as floats */
/* Create the N solvers */
for (i=0; i < N; i++)
{
shMem[iLeft(i)] = 0.0;
shMem[iRight(i)] = 0.0;
/* Setup locks on the buckets */
resultLock[i] = mutex_alloc();
mutex_lock(resultLock[i]);
segLock[i] = mutex_alloc();
/* Create the solver thread */
t_handle[i] = cthread_fork(solver, i);
};
nAlive = N;
/* This loop controls the dispatching of requests and processing of results
*/
startTime = getTime(); /* Starting time */
solverNum = 0;
while (nAlive > 0)
{
/* Wait for a message from a solver */
while (!mutex_try_lock(resultLock[solverNum]))
{
cthread_yield();
solverNum = (solverNum +1) % N;
};
/* Acquired lock */
result = result + shMem[solverNum];

/* Dispatch new work to the solver that just finished */
if (currentRight+length <= topRange)
{ /* Assign the next segment to the solver */
shMem[iLeft(solverNum)] = currentLeft;
shMem[iRight(solverNum)] = currentRight;
mutex_unlock(segLock[solverNum]);
currentLeft = currentRight;
currentRight = currentRight + length;
}
else
{ /* Eliminate the solver */
shMem[iLeft(solverNum)] = 1.0;
shMem[iRight(solverNum)] = 0.0;
mutex_unlock(segLock[solverNum]);
cthread_join(t_handle[solverNum]);
nAlive--;
};
};
/* All done -- Report the time & result for this iteration */
stopTime = getTime();
printf("%d processes required %6.2f seconds, result = %fn",
N, stopTime-startTime, result);
exit(0);
}
/*------------ The Solver Thread Schema --------------- */
void solver(me)
int me;
{
float left, right;
float result;
int i;
/* Ask for initial work by writing a result of zero */
mutex_lock(segLock[me]); /* This should pass immediately */
shMem[me] = 0.0;
mutex_unlock(resultLock[me]);
left = 0.0;
right = 0.0;
while (TRUE)
{
/* Wait for a pair of endpoints */
mutex_lock(segLock[me]);
left = shMem[iLeft(me)];
right = shMem[iRight(me)];
/* Terminate if the left endpoint is greater than the right */
if (left > right) cthread_exit(0);
/* make the call measurable */
for (i=0;i < 1000;i++) cthread_yield();
shMem[me] = ((1.0/(left+1.0))+(1.0/(right+1.0)))/2.0*(right-
left);

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

own profit, the vice-kingdom of La Plata. He seizes upon French Guiana,
which remains in the power of Brazil until 1817.
But such vast plans as these do not strengthen the hands of the monarch.
The Court, silent and extravagant, does not please the Brazilians, and the
King favours the Portuguese merchants by an extreme prodigality. He
creates a new nobility, that of the "sons of the King," and its influence in the
palace and its insolent display soon weary the colonists. The old régime is
still extant; a parasitical bureaucracy, recruited among the Portuguese,
weighs heavily on the destinies of Brazil.
A revolution in Portugal in 1820 invites the King to return to Europe to
accept the Constitution put forward by the revolutionary junta of Lisbon.
The monarch leaves his son, Dom Pedro de Alcantara, in Brazil, and quits
the country. It is said that on bidding Dom Pedro farewell he cried: "Before
long Brazil will separate from Portugal; if it is so, crown yourself before
some adventurer gets hold of the sceptre."
The Lisbon Parliament wished to destroy the reforms of João VI. in
Brazil, and to transform a monarchical nation into a feudal colony, but the
Brazilian deputies then in Portugal protested and emigrated to England. A
revolution at Pernambuco in 1817 had raised the standard of nationalism.
The manifesto or Preciso of the revolutionaries formulated the complaints
of the colony. "There is no longer any distinction," said the victorious
patriots, "between Brazilians and Europeans; all consider themselves
brothers; as descendants of the same origin, as inhabitants of the same
country, as believers of the same religion."
Journalism, in its infancy, was propagating constitutional ideas both in
the north and in the south. Jacobin declamation and romantic ideology
created a powerful movement in the taciturn colony. Governmental juntas
were appointed in the provinces. Portuguese and Brazilians struggled for
political and social domination, but a Lusitanian army, in spite of popular
protest, imposed the oath of fidelity to the Constitution which had been
promulgated for the metropolis by the distant Cortes.
The prince prevented a federal disaggregation and founded the unity of
Brazil. He united the representatives of the rebellious provinces, convoked,

in 1822, a Constituent Assembly, visited the country districts, and became
the "perpetual defender of Brazil." Like the Gothic kings at the time of the
Moorish invasion, or the French princes who were faced with feudal
anarchy, he founded a national dynasty, and bound the unity and
independence of Brazil with the destinies of the monarchy. Dom João VI.
had raised Brazil to the rank of a kingdom; Pedro I. rendered it independent
of Portugal. "Independence or death!" he cried, in his triumphant Odyssey
across the rebellious provinces. At Ipiranga floated the new flag, gold and
green, of the new-born Empire. Pedro I. was crowned Constitutional
Emperor in December, 1822.
José Bonifacio Andrade e Silva, naturalist, philosopher, and soldier, an
encyclopædist according to the French tradition, was the minister of this
national transformation; he condemned the revolution, having previously
supported natural rights and excessive liberties. He suppressed the journals,
and the monarch dissolved the Constituent Assembly, whose violence and
lyrical propensities were not a help to the political action of a conservative
minister.
Extreme groups were formed which the Emperor endeavoured to
conciliate: reactionaries who wanted an absolute government, idealists who
wished for a republic, moderates, and conciliatory monarchists who sought
a gradual progress under a stable government. Weary of revolutions the
Emperor inaugurated a despotic régime; he withdrew from the Assembly,
exiled the rebels, among others Andrade, now radical but formerly a
reactionary, and always greedy for power. He surrounded himself with
Portuguese troops, and the new nobility, the filhos do reinho, and the press
attacked him in the name of nationalism. It demanded the persecution of
favourites, as in the Spanish colonies the expulsion of the old ruling classes
was decreed.
The Emperor once again united the moderate parties, and demanded a
Constitution, to which the country swore allegiance in 1824; it was a
constitutional charter, an imitation of the liberal European charters. In 1826
he convoked a new National Assembly. Revolutions were still disturbing
the country; some provinces wished to secede from the new kingdom;
Pernambuco was always the centre of liberalism. An old patriot, Paez de

Andrade, hoped to unite the Northern States of Brazil in the "Confederation
of the Equator." The monarch sent troops to the north to intimidate the
country, and the Lower Chamber condemned this act of despotism; a radical
priest, Diego Antonio Feijó, led the radical opposition. He was a
revolutionary in Parliament, demanding a responsible government, and
condemning the ministers who forced peace upon the provinces by means
of foreign legions, German and Irish mercenaries.
The Chambers were invaded by republicans and federals, and Pedro I. by
no means abandoned his reactionary ministers. These latter succeeded one
another in a series of perpetual crises. The external warfare complicated the
political situation; Uruguay had revolted, counting on the aid of Argentine
regiments. The Brazilians were defeated, and recognised the independence
of Uruguay by the treaty of 1828.
King João died in 1826, and the Emperor remained undecided between
the traditional kingdom and the new Empire. He formed a liberal Cabinet to
satisfy radicals and federalists, who had triumphed at the elections of 1830.
A useless transaction: ministries fell, and the financial muddle increased.
The people of Rio de Janeiro revolted, and the Emperor abdicated. José
Bonifacio, creator of the political régime, was to be the tutor of the infant
prince.
The Regency was a moderate government which steered clear of
reactionaries and exaltés both, of absolutism and republicanism. Father
Feijó, minister of the Regency, became, like many radicals, a conservative;
he organised the National Guard, suppressed military meetings and
enforced peace in the interior. Subversive movements continued, and the
invulnerable minister repressed them. The administration of the country
progressed, schools were founded, the Assembly issued wise codes of laws.
The Regent, Andrade, imprisoned and deposed, Diego Feijó was elected
tutor of the prince in 1835; the old radical politician was now dictator. He
represented the moderates as against the revolutionists; in extreme cases he
abandoned liberalism for autocracy. As early as 1836 his political autocracy
began to decline and the liberal campaign gathered force. Feijó passed over
the regency to his friend, Aranjo Lima, and left the Government. This
representative of authority in a country which was a prey to anarchy was

autocratic by virtue of his patriotism; like all American dictators he stifled
revolution in its blood.
The liberals of yesterday are often the moderates or conservatives of to-
day in monarchical Brazil. Andrade, Feijó, and Pereira de Vasconcellos are
examples of this inevitable transformation. Liberty was the creed of these
politicians when they were oppressed by colonial absolutism, by the
servitude anterior to the monarchy and the Empire; they realised their creed,
and the reign of liberal principles resulted in disorder. The excess of
authority or the excess of anarchy stood in the way of peace and progress.
The political leaders of Brazil swayed from side to side; they were liberals
against despotism and autocrats against demagogy.
In 1840 the infant prince attained his majority; the liberals, powerful in
Parliament, demanded that the Regency should be terminated. The country
longed for internal peace, but discord between the parties continued.
Numerous revolutions disturbed the country. Minas and Pernambuco, where
sedition had passed into a chronic condition, rose in 1842 and 1848
respectively.
Pedro II. governed with the liberals, but the dangers of excessive
liberalism, of premature democracy, forced him toward autocracy. He was a
learned and sceptical Marcus Aurelius, a stoic who had read Voltaire. "A
simple and modest democrat, losing nothing of his personal distinction,"
wrote the historian Ribeiro, "generous and disinterested, an example of all
the domestic virtues, he courted the respectful sympathy of the crowd rather
than popularity."[1] He was the first republican of Brazil; he presided over a
nation in process of transformation. Before the clash of races, the
revolutionary unrest, and Utopian radicalism his Government maintained
the traditions, reacted against violent reforms, and favoured the gradual
formation of a new world.
In 1841 he confided the ministry to the Marquis de Paranagua, who
exiled the revolutionaries, reinforced the political unity of the country, and
re-established the Council of State. New ministries continued the
conservative reaction. Without freeing the slaves, Brazil prohibited the
traffic in this black merchandise, at the suggestion of England. The Empire,
faithful to its traditions, intervened in the affairs of La Plata.

The Viscount de Itaborahy, once the external conflict was at an end,
presided over an administrative ministry. Immigrants were attracted, and
founded German colonies in the south; the navigation of the interior was
protected, and the higher regions of the Sertaõ were conquered. A new
commercial code, an administrative organisation, agrarian laws, and the
reform of the treasury: such were the various forms of the Imperial activity.
Itaborahy was followed by an authoritative minister, the Marquis de Parana,
a political figure of lasting national significance.
A great administrator, he organised public education, and extended the
railways and the navigation of the rivers of the interior. He was assisted in
his labours by distinguished statesmen: a jurist, Nabuco de Araujo, and a
diplomatist, Baron de Rio Branco. His activities were not merely
administrative, but political and social as well. He wished to reconcile the
parties; he absorbed the liberal element in the conservative group, and by
this fusion of the old parties prepared the way for the appearance of new
groups, dominated by a definite intention of liberation or conservation. The
reactionary cabinets and the philosopher-Emperor had founded order in the
place of revolutionary dispersion. But this order, the victory of narrow
traditionalism, could not be lasting. Multiple racial elements—Portuguese,
Indian, and African—were seething in the new society; democracy would
prove to be the protest of redeemed slaves against a powerful oligarchy. The
Marquis de Parana, who, having attracted the liberals, transformed his own
conservative group, and consolidated order by reuniting the factions,
understood that reaction could not be permanent in an incoherent
democracy. He was the last of the conservatives and the first of the liberals.
The reactionary cabinets of Caxias, Olinda, and Ferraz followed his, and
other parties were formed: authoritative conservatives, uncompromising
liberals, and a party of conciliation. The elections of 1860 were a
democratic triumph. Great orators came to the fore with a truly tropical
eloquence; these "new men," like Antonio Leocadio Guzman in Venezuela,
stirred the passions of the people. To oppose their liberal programme
conservatives and moderate liberals united in Congress. The reactionaries
governed from 1848 to 1862; now the radicals sought for power. The last
conservative cabinets fell to pieces before the opposition of Parliament and
the protests of the crowd. Despotic monarchy was condemned;

constitutional monarchy had many supporters; new elections, in 1863,
increased the strength of the liberals and democrats. The Paraguayan war
against the dictatorship of Lopez gave unusual prominence to the external
life of the country, and political agitation died down.
Pedro II., representing the conservative interests of historical and
national continuity, was opposed to an unruly liberalism. After one liberal
ministry he chose two moderate cabinets, under Olinda and Vasconcellos,
which were inclined to conservatism, and finally Itaborahy dissolved the
Lower Chamber. The Emperor had gone back ten years; the ministry that in
1852 had marked the triumph of the conservatives was now to rule in the
face of a rising tide of democracy. A constitutional monarch by law, he was
none the less an autocrat, for he forced his ministries upon a hostile
Chamber, and gave politics a direction contrary to the will of the people,
and those their suffrage had newly elected.
The liberals rose against the reactionary Emperor and demanded reform
or revolution. A transformation of the electoral system, of the Draconian
code of justice, and of the army, which was really a Prætorian legion
supporting an absolute power, and, in the social department, the liberation
of the slaves: such was the programme of 1869. A dissident group of
conservatives united with the liberals, and a patrician, Nabuco de Araujo,
signed the manifesto of the reformers.
It was the crisis of the monarchy. Its historical function was nearly at an
end; it had organised peace, created unity and nationality, and laid the
orderly foundations of the new Brazilian race. Autocracy, necessary in the
dawn of the century, was now contrary to democratic development; after
1870 the liberals openly aspired to found a republic.
The ministry of Viscount Rio Branco, from 1871 to 1876, maintained the
status quo. A great administrator, like the Marquis de Parana, he effected a
reform in public education by founding special schools; he took a census of
the country, and extended the network of railways. Immigration increased
under his government and exchange was bettered. A great social reform
changed the face of the Empire; in 1871 slavery was abolished. The
separated classes were about to mingle with the nation; the result was the
rise of a mestizo democracy. Slavery abolished, castes confounded, liberals

discontented, the reactionaries growing old—on the doubtful horizon one
supreme hope was visible: the republic. It was now the collective ideal, as
the Empire had been in the last days of the colonial period. It was
proclaimed, without violence, in 1889.
The Emperor, who abdicated, a symbol of the majestic past, had
prepared the advent of the Republic that ostracised him. His ideas were
liberal; he was the protector of the sciences; a smiling philosopher; and in
fostering the intellectual transformation of Brazil he exposed his own
autocracy to the criticism of the liberals. By abolishing slavery he
weakened the power of the reigning oligarchy; by destroying privileges and
uniting hostile classes he created a democracy.
The Empire, in America, represents tutelary authority. Between the
feudal colony and the Republic—two extreme points of political
development—arose the Brazilian monarchy, as a moderative power. It
brought a necessary equilibrium, and, with that, progress. First of all it
established autonomy; then a national order, a national dynasty; it preserved
traditions, and organised the forces of society. Beside it arose a conservative
oligarchy, bound to the soil; castes and permanent interests were created.
The territorial overlords upheld the stability of the Empire, and an
admirable political system imposed peace upon a heterogeneous people,
shaken by the clash of races and the opposition of seaboard and province.
Between 1848 and 1862 the monarchy created the Brazilian nation.
In the South American republics anarchy destroys national unity and
prevents the crystallisation of the social classes. In Brazil there were
frequent revolutions under the Regency; military leaders were eager for
power, but there was a permanent and inviolable bulwark against disorder.
The Emperor was the caudillo of caudillos, the leader of leaders; the
Constitution partially justified his despotism. Without violating it, he
imposed, by means of conservative ministries, lasting peace and gradual
reforms. Against this inflexible Cæsar struggled a seething democracy; it
snatched certain privileges and won limited liberties, and eventually saw the
birth of the Republic, the appointed term of political and social evolution.
The rigour of the principle of authority has spared Brazil the perpetual
revolutionary crises endured by other American nations.

[1] Work already cited, p. 516.
CHAPTER IV
PARAGUAY: PERPETUAL DICTATORSHIP
Dr. Francia—The opinion of Carlyle—The two Lopez—Tyranny and the military spirit in
Paraguay.
Paraguay, a child of the old régime, has preserved seclusion and
absolutism. In other republics independence was a violent condemnation of
the colonial methods. Freed from Spanish tutelage, the Paraguayan
democracy none the less maintained its retired life under paternal monarchs.
Its evolution is original; showing neither continual anarchy, as in the
tropics, nor the perpetual quarrels of caudillos, disputing territory and
wealth. Dictators and tyrants imposed their inviolable will on the inland
nation. Autocracy levelled classes and races, and prepared the way for the
appearance, in isolated Paraguay, of a new caste, formed of the fusion of
Guarani Indians and Spaniards. The dictators of Paraguay professed a rigid
Americanism; they expelled strangers, and with arrogant patriotism wished
the republic to be self-sufficing. Their ideal was essentially Spanish; a
democracy governed by Cæsar.
Dr. Francia was the first dictator in the Republic founded by the Jesuits.
A gloomy personality, of an intense inner life, like Garcia-Moreno, he
seemed one of Cromwell's Puritans. Taciturn and solitary, truthful and
punctual, methodical, like the Anglo-Saxons, and ambitious, but without
passion or exaltation, he admired Bonaparte, and like him became consul
and emperor.

He was born in 1758. He was the son of a Portuguese or Brazilian,
Garcia Rodriguez Francia. He studied theology in the colonial university of
silent, austere Cordoba. When General Belgrano fomented the rebellion of
the Paraguayans against the Spanish rule, and a governmental junta was
installed, Caspar Rodriguez Francia was a member of the latter. The little
republic elected triumvirs and consuls in the Roman manner. A Congress
assembled in the same year decreed the independence of Paraguay. The
country freed itself not only from Spain but also from Buenos-Ayres. No
longer recognising the limits of the ancient vice-kingdom, the junta refused
to treat with Belgrano unless he recognised the autonomy of Paraguay.
The Congress of 1813, at which a thousand deputies were present,
continued to parody Rome; it appointed Francia and Fulgencio Yegros
consuls, and promulgated a political system. Cæsar and Pompey became the
names of the new magistrates, who were alternately in power. The liberty of
Paraguay was consolidated, and the consuls refused to send delegates to the
Congress of La Plata, which the haughty metropolis convoked at Buenos-
Ayres. These magistrates condemned Argentines and Spaniards to civil
death, and forbade them to marry Paraguayan women of white race. In a
third Congress (1814) Francia and Yegros demanded a temporary
dictatorship.
Yegros was ignorant and popular. Francia, energetic, learned, and a born
dissembler, was obedient to classic memories and to the Napoleonic
tradition; he aspired to absolute power. He was appointed dictator for three
years, and soon obtained supreme power. He improvised his policy upon
reading the ancient history of Rollin; the republicans of Rome served him
as constant models, whose energy and austerity he imitated.
Educated for the priesthood, he became an advocate. He knew the law
and theology like a lettered colonial, subtle and dogmatic. Before becoming
consul he had filled various municipal offices; first he was secretary to the
municipality, then mayor. He studied local needs, and prepared to govern as
a nationalist.
He made use of religion, as did Garcia-Moreno and Portales, in order to
render his political actions more efficacious. He was tolerant in respect of

beliefs, but condemned atheism; he felt that the Church was the only moral
force in a disturbed democracy.
He would accept no international religion; he wanted a Paraguayan,
American cult, in which also he resembled Guzman-Blanco. He declared
himself head of the national Church, and disregarded the authority of the
Holy See; he suppressed the seminary and the monastic orders of the
Franciscans, the Dominicans, and the Sisters of Mercy, and proceeded to
appoint vicars and curates himself. The Inquisition was abolished,
processions were forbidden, and the number of holidays was reduced to a
minimum. Francia ordered the payment of tithes, protected religion, and
extended the rights conferred by patronage on the Spanish kings; he sold
the goods of the Church to build schools and barracks. In short, he aspired
to govern a Christian republic freed from clericalism.
Religion consecrated his authority; the Paraguayan Church taught that all
power, even tyranny, was in its essence divine. When moral activity did not
suffice, Francia, like Rosas, appealed to terror. Conspiracies against his
tyranny were numerous; the Dictator shot the rebels. His punishments
revealed an Oriental cruelty. In 1821 he executed the representatives of the
Paraguayan nobility. He levelled his subjects, and governed without
ministers, surrounded only by informers and prætorian guards. In 1860 a
Congress conferred perpetual dictatorship upon him, and he dissolved the
Congress. He suppressed the cabildos, or municipalities, and replaced them
by juntas selected by himself; he annihilated all hierarchy and all privilege,
and assassinated Yegros, his companion in the Consulate. His enemies he
imprisoned, exiled, or killed. His ambition was to cut off every head that
raised itself above the level of the uniform, anonymous, and laborious
crowd.
He established internal order under his autocracy. "Quarrels," he said,
"paralyse industry, and injure the prosperity of the nation."
He created a Church and a Fatherland. To ensure his work, he expelled
the Spaniards and isolated his country. He protected all foreigners who did
not come from Spain, closed the ports to trade, and barred the rivers to free
navigation.

His efforts were contradictory. He hated Spain; he wished to abolish the
privileges of the nobility and clergy, and he restored the colonial system; he
even aggravated it, giving it an unheard-of severity. He restored absolutism,
commercial monopoly, and the communism of the Jesuits; there were
estancias known as "the Country's," whose products satisfied the
requirements of the budget. He unwillingly conceded licences to trade or
navigate on the rivers; he opened great magazines, which recalled the
colonial fairs, for the sale of merchandise. Paraguay existed in a condition
of prodigious isolation; commercial transactions declined, and money went
out of circulation.
During this time the population increased. The Dictator favoured
Creoles, stimulated the crossing of Indian and foreign blood by severe
measures, and carefully chose foreigners for the improvement of the
Paraguayan population by means of forced unions; in this way he continued
the work of the Jesuits. A homogeneous democracy, a national conscience,
was gradually formed.
Like all the great American dictators, he stimulated material progress,
and rebuilt Assomption, the capital city. He constructed public works, and
forts to stop the encroachments of Indians, protected agriculture, and
created industries. His ideal was full autonomy in an isolation possibly
barbarous. By successive regulations he forced proprietors to sow their
lands, to extend the cultivated area; like the Peruvian Incas, he would have
none idle in his kingdom; he distributed tasks and enforced their execution.
He ruled from 1811 to 1840, a long thirty years, a period attained by no
other American dictator but Rosas. His work was rude and imposing; he
created a race, and freed his threatened country in every sense, political,
economic, and religious. A priest said once in an ardent panegyric: "The
Lord, having cast a pitying glance upon our country, sent us Dr. Francia to
save it." The tyrant thus became a redeemer, and is not without his strange
legend. At seventy years of age he was regarded as a remote and divine
personage. From a secret palace he governed a disciplined people. He had
militarised the country and exalted patriotism, the strong national feeling of
small nations, from Uruguay and Paraguay in America and Servia, to
Bulgaria and Montenegro in Europe.

His long tyranny in no way debased the race. When he died Francia was
mourned by his people, a people about to reveal in warfare a Spartan
tenacity, a tranquil heroism. Paraguay was unconquerable; it was
dispeopled, the masculine population disappeared, but the Republic
remained erect and aggressive. Francia had formed a proud and warlike
race. He was the most extraordinary man the world had seen for a hundred
years, said Carlyle in one of his Essays—a Dominican ripe for canonisation,
an excellent superior of Jesuits, a rude and atrabilious Grand Inquisitor. The
Scottish historian praises the grim silences of Francia—"the grim
unspeakabilities"—that mute solitude in which remarkable men commune
with the mystery of things.
After thirty years of uniform dictatorship the Guaranian people might
have revolted against autocracy. But here, contrary to that which passed in
other republics, the monarchy was not the term of absolutism. Francia was
replaced by new tyrants, the two Lopez, and Paraguay accepted perpetual
dictatorship.
A "ricorso" exhibited the old round of evolution: the triumvirate, then the
consulate, then dictatorship.
The last of the Lopez was better educated and more moderate than the
previous tyrants; he militarised the country, created an army of thirty
thousand men, and developed the fleet. Brazil and the Argentine had
difficulties with Paraguay; these two countries were quarrelling for
supremacy in La Plata. Paraguay and Uruguay, States rebellious to every
yoke, provoked conflicts between these ambitious powers. Brazil demanded
reparation for the attacks directed by Uruguay against Brazilians, and Lopez
intervened as meditator in this conflict. He assisted Uruguay to maintain
"the equilibrium of La Plata." The Empire refused his good offices, and the
haughty tyrant declared war. He asked General Mitre, President of the
Argentine Republic, permission to send his troops across the territory of
Corrientes. The President refused permission, and protested against the
accumulation of Paraguayan troops on the frontier. The belligerents were
now three. Paraguay attacked two powerful States, the Argentine and
Brazil. The war lasted five years (1865-70).

The war had all the grandeur of an ancient epic. The heroism of
Paraguay overcame numbers, destiny, and death; she defeated the allies,
and, hemmed in by superior forces, still held out under the leadership of
Lopez, now transformed into a stern apostle of nationalism. He performed
prodigies; he attacked without reserves, and, in a bellicose delirium, shot
down those who criticised his actions, and continued the war on a territory
dispeopled and steeped in blood. The allies seized Assomption, and Lopez
himself fell in battle: the tragic personification of an irreducible people. The
first of the Lopez had written to Rosas in 1845, "Paraguay cannot be
conquered." The war confirmed this prophecy. In 1870 the Brazilian and
Argentine victors found only a decimated country; the cities were deserted,
and foreigners had taken possession of the soil; the solemn silence which
Francia had dreamed of for his country reigned throughout. The women
were accomplishing their funeral rites above unnumbered and innumerable
tombs; they dug trenches, and, like Antigone in the Æschylean tragedy,
carried in the folds of their mantles the maternal soil that was to cover the
dead.
After this war nothing could be more monotonous than Paraguayan life;
military presidents and civil presidents have succeeded one another with
intervals of anarchy. The spirit of dictatorship is not dead. The intellectuals
—Dominguez, Gondra, Baez—deny Lopez and Francia; but new tyrants
reign over the midland Republic.
The principle of authority, exacerbated and tenacious, has created
modern Paraguay. This nation confirms a law of American history.
Dictatorship is the proper government to create internal order, to develop
wealth, and to unite inimical castes.

BOOK IV
FORMS OF POLITICAL ANARCHY
Revolution is general in Latin America. There the most civilised nations
have been rent by civil wars. But there are a few republics in which these
conflicts have been perpetual: such is the case in Central America and
the Antilles. It seems as though the tropical climate must favour these
disturbances. Assassinations of presidents, battles in the cities, collisions
between factions and castes, inflammatory and deceptive rhetoric, all
lead one to suppose that these equatorial regions are inimical to peace
and organisation.
There are two South American peoples in which Jacobinism has become
a national malady, in which men of every creed are involved: they are
Colombia and Ecuador. Their tragic history shows us a curious form of
Ibero-American anarchy: namely, religious anarchy.
CHAPTER I
COLOMBIA
Conservatives and radicals—General Mosquera: his influence—A statesman: Rafael
Nuñez, his doctrines political.
A certain writer of New Granada, Rafael Nuñez, a President and a party-
leader, writes that "there is not in South America a country more
iconoclastic, politically speaking, than Colombia." Republican evolution

there has been peculiar: it has witnessed perpetual anarchy, like other
American democracies, and civil wars as long and as sanguinary as those of
the Argentine, but no long succession of tenacious caudillo, personifications
of local discord, whose ambitions determine the intention of political
conflict.
In Colombia men have fought for ideas; anarchy there has had a
religious character. The parties had definite programmes, and in the conflict
of incompatible convictions they soon arrived at the Byzantine method of
destruction. Public and private wealth was exhausted, the land was
dispeopled, and inquisitors of religion or free thought condemned their
enemies to exile. "With us," Rafael Nuñez admits "there has been an excess
of political dogmatism." A Jacobin ardour divides mankind; the fiery
Colombian race is impassioned by vague and abstract ideas. The champions
of liberty and the supporters of absolutism apply their principles to an
unstable republic; they legislate for a democracy devoid of passions and
inimical castes; they build the future state by means of syllogisms.
These sanguinary struggles have a certain rude grandeur. On the
continent men fight for crafty caudillos, for the conquest of power and
fiscal treasure; the oligarchy which occupies the seat of government
defends its bureaucratic well-being from the parties in opposition. In
Colombia exalted convictions are the motives of political enmities; men
abandon fortune and family, as in the great religious periods of history, to
hasten to the defence of a principle. These hidalgos waste the country and
fall nobly, with the Semitic ardour of Spanish crusaders. Heroes abound in
the fervour of these battles. Obedient to the logic of Jacobinism, Colombia
perishes, but the truth is saved.[1]
The liberal party, victorious in 1849, promoted a vast democratic
programme: the romantic liberalism of the French thinkers, the socialistic
ideas of the Revolution of 1848, had reached Colombia. The Colombians
desired not only the liberation of the slaves, the abolition of industrial
monopolies, and the autonomy of the communes, but also the realisation of
the needs of democracy; all the political liberties, subject to prudent
reserves; direct and universal suffrage, trial by jury, the suppression of the
army, the abolition of capital punishment, the institution of universities and

scientific diplomas, and the expulsion of the Jesuits, who in America were
the obstinate supporters of the old colonial system. Federation, a weak
executive, a secular State, and powerful communes: such was the aspiration
of the liberals. A fraction of the party bore a symbolic name: it was known
as Golgotha. In their civil wars the Catholics chose Jesus of Nazareth for
their patron. Radicalism even aspired to religious consecration; it founded a
Christian anarchy, like that of the primitive evangelical communities. It
preached fraternity and liberty, condemning political power.
Nothing could be more disastrous to a disorganised republic than
rationalism of this type. It applied the principles formulated by the
extremest idealists in highly cultivated countries. Colombia, shaken by
revolutions, had need of a strong government; radicalism destroyed it.
There was no provincial life, yet it created the omnipotent commune; it
suppressed the army in a democracy threatened by civil and external war,
established trial by jury in a country swarming with illiterates, and granted
liberties wholesale to a revolutionary people; it accorded political rights to
the negro and the Indian, servile and ignorant as they were, and demanded
federation, which is to say that it multiplied political disorder. Foreseeing
the errors of the future, Bolivar told the Colombians: "I can plainly see our
work destroyed and the maledictions of the centuries falling upon our
heads."
From 1849 to 1853 the liberal party struggled to impose its doctrines.
The Constitution of 1853, celebrated in Colombian annals, was doctrinaire
and radical; it proclaimed the liberty of the press, of thought, and of
suffrage. By separating Church and State it provoked a religious war and
accepted a moderated political centralisation. Thus the excesses of unity
and of federation were avoided.
The liberal charter gave rise to lengthy quarrels. The States gave
themselves conflicting and opposite constitutions; some were conservative
and reinforced authority; some were radical and founded an anarchical
democracy; some were liberal and extended the suffrage; some were
moderate and conciliatory, uniting the ideas of all parties in unstable
equilibrium. In a country already divided by religious questions this variety
of status created a perpetual disorder.

A new Constitution, more precise than that of 1853, established the
federal system without restrictions; it was the triumph of the "Golgothas"
over the "Draconians," the radicals over the classic liberals. The battle was
renewed with fresh vigour. The religious communities lost their legal
character, and could no longer acquire property; the State usurped their
wealth and ruined them as in Mexico. The impetuous radicals sapped not
only the ecclesiastical power, but the political power also. They reduced the
presidential period to two years, granted the provinces full sovereignty,
prohibited the death penalty without exception, conceded the absolute
liberty of the press, and authorised the buying and selling of arms.
Excessive liberalism disorganised the country. Colombia suffered much
from this vain idealism; she became the social laboratory of professors of
Utopianism. The radicals created fresh elements of discord; they attacked
authority, religion, and national unity. In 1870, in the face of bankruptcy,
the party abandoned its original extremeness; it no longer professed anti-
militarism, nor desired the complete separation of Church and State.
Sceptical as to the benefits of the suffrage, it re-enforced the executive, in
spite of its original federal creed.
The conservatives governed the country from the dissolution of Greater
Colombia, in 1829, until 1849; they performed the work of organisation.
Without forming an oligarchy, as in Venezuela and Chili, they represented
permanent interests and effective powers; religion, the colonial nobility, and
the patricians who won autonomy for their country. They were
conservatives in so far as they opposed the radicals, but in 1832 they
granted a political charter in which they accepted liberal principles; they
respected municipal liberties and the liberty of the press, surrounded all the
powers of the State with prestige and authority, as also the senate and the
magistrature, created a Council of State, so necessary in an improvised
democracy, protected Catholicism, and limited the suffrage. To be a citizen
a man required "an assured subsistence without subjection to any one
whatever in the quality of servant or workman." In the social world they
accepted the old division of castes. They did not free the slaves, and they
tolerated the exportation of human merchandise. The radicals protested
against this shameful traffic; in 1842 regulations were passed affecting
black immigration, and 1849 marked the fall of the conservative party. Then

arose eloquent demagogues, who preached a social gospel much like that of
the French revolutionists of 1848.
Political life was less imperfect in Colombia than in other Latin
democracies. The opposition did sometimes triumph in the electoral
struggle; thus in 1837 Dr. Marques was elected president against the will of
General Santander, the government leader. I have spoken of the solid
organisation of the parties: however, there was no lack of caudillos, whose
influence in neo-Granzdan history was a lasting one.
The first President, General Santander, was one of Bolivar's lieutenants,
as was Flores in Ecuador and Paez in Venezuela. He inherited the moral
authority of the Liberator, and governed pacifically from 1831. He aspired
to absolutism, founded schools, and organised the public finances; in
London he commenced the negotiation of the Colombian debt, declared
Panama a free port, and endeavoured to enforce unity and peace;
conspirators and revolutionaries he shot.
After the founder of the nation came two strong personalities who hold a
prominent place in the history of Colombia: General Mosquera and Dr.
Rafael Nuñez.[2] Their long rule is comparable to that of Garcia-Moreno in
Ecuador, or of Paez and Guzman-Blanco in Venezuela.
General Mosquera was at first a conservative leader; his education, his
origin, and his travels in Europe all divided him from the democracy. He
had the gift of command, which had been developed by the direction of
armies in his youth. President in 1845, he developed the national wealth.
His government, which lasted from 1845 to 1849, was distinguished by an
intense material progress: railways were constructed, steam navigation
commenced on the River Magdalena, the teaching in the universities was
improved, the finances were organised, the service of the debt was assured,
and the moral prestige of the country improved.
This conservative President had liberal leanings. He presented laws to
Congress which made his old supporters uneasy; the abolition of the "tenth"
or tithe paid to the Church, and the diminution of fiscal protection. It is
difficult to believe that this lucky soldier conceived the wise ambition to
transform his government into a liberal régime without violence. Mosquera

knew that after 1848 and its echoes in Colombia the basis of his future
popularity must be a violent liberalism, and he became a federal and a
democratic leader. As military dictator he placed himself at the head of the
revolution of 1860, seized the capital, Bogota, and was elected President in
1861. He imposed his variable will, changed his ideas and his party in order
to retain power, and attempted to govern above the law and above mankind.

GENERAL MOSQUERA.
President of Colombia (1845-1849, 1861-1864, 1865-1867).
Mosquera declared a Kulturkampf, separated Church and State, exiled
the bishops, confiscated the goods of the convents, and, like Guzman-
Blanco, created a national Church. Without the authorisation of the supreme
power no priest could exercise his religious functions. The civil power was
the supreme power; the Church and her ministers were subject thereto.
The President shot or suppressed his enemies, and imposed his policy by
terror; he enthroned militarism. Faithful armies followed him, accustomed
to victory. The domestic policy of New Granada did not satisfy his
ambition; he aspired to restore the Greater Colombia, and dreamed the
dream of Rosas and Santa-Cruz; the hegemony of his country to be forced
upon other peoples. He declared war upon Ecuador, and was victorious. In
1864 he was followed by another liberal, Dr. Murillo-Torro. In 1865 the
military caudillo resumed the reins of government. He was hostile to
Congress, and proclaimed himself dictator; he violated the Constitution and
the law, intervened in the struggles of other States, and sought an absolute
and irresponsible authority. His own supporters conspired against him, and
sent him into exile. In Colombia he was the indisputable authority, as Paez
in Venezuela, from 1845 to 1867.
After this long empire came a period of civil Presidents and military
Presidents, who moderated the ambitions of the liberals. Presently a new
caudillo arose: Dr. Rafael Nuñez. Mosquera was first a conservative, then a
liberal. Nuñez, a liberal, fomented a conservative reaction and dominated
Colombian politics for twenty years.
At one time secretary to Mosquera, he had made a study of the evolution
of great States. He was not only a leader, but also a diplomatist, and a
philosopher in his political disinterestedness, his lasting moral influence,
and the width of his views. A theorist like Balmaceda and Sarmiento, he
none the less did not forget the inevitable imperfections of Colombia. He
became President of the Senate in 1878, and a minister of the Reformation
and head of the Republic in 1880. Democracy looked to him for a
renaissance.

In the heart of the liberal party Dr. Nuñez directed a new independent
group. He had been a radical in 1850, but he departed from the rigidity of
his original beliefs before the persistent suggestions of experience. Why
weaken the executive in an anarchical nation—why increase the national
troubles by the bitterness of religious warfare? Nuñez became a liberal-
conservative; he forgot his original socialistic principles, the theories of
Louis Blanc and Saint-Simon, and applied a British common-sense to
Colombian politics.[3]
His political ideas (expounded in various articles) were prudent and
conciliatory; no sterile idealism dominated Dr. Nuñez. He believed, with
many English statesmen, that "in politics there are no absolute truths, and
all things may be good or evil according to opportunity and extent." This
was the policy he opposed to Colombian dogmatism. He believed that
"politics is indissolubly bound up with the economic problem."
A conservative in religion, tolerant in the art of governing, he taught the
Jacobins of America some admirable lessons. "Our population," he wrote,
"does not exceed three millions of inhabitants, the majority of whom are but
slightly civilised. If the social fraction called upon by its aptitudes to the
functions of government divides and subdivides itself and occupies itself in
weakening itself we shall never succeed in doing anything of importance as
legatees of the Peninsular domination." His ideal was a free oligarchy,
coherent in intention, and in action persistent.
Equally lamentable were the division of the best class of the nation and
the intolerance of the governing parties. Rafael Nuñez preached respect for
minorities. "The absolute exclusion from the government of the parties in a
minority," he said, "weakens the national spirit, envenoms discussion, and
creates extraordinary dangers." Majorities have need of discussion and
opposition. "The myopia of party spirit," adds the caudillo, "fails to
perceive the virile vigour which a political group obtains by the mere fact of
giving proofs of tolerance, justice, and respect for its defenceless
adversary." "When for some extraordinary reason one of the great parties
disappears, the surviving party splits up into fractions, and these fractions
fight among themselves as bitterly as when they have to face a common
enemy: even more bitterly."

The leader of the independents had studied political science not only in
foreign books, but also in practice, in public life; he had a profound
acquaintance with the country which he governed, and with the Latin
American vices which are the incurable weakness of these new
democracies. "We have no viceroy in Colombia," he said, "but anonymous
rulers. We have a written liberty, but no practical liberty. We have a
Republic, but only in name, for opinion is not expressed by the only
legitimate means, which is the suffrage." "It is a grave error, generally
accepted by us, that the sole object of a political party and all its efforts
should tend toward the possession of the public power, represented by the
leadership of the national army."
He defends the principle of authority as against anarchy. "The best of
instruments, destined for the long and arduous task of civilising the human
species."
Respect for the constituted powers is unknown in Colombia. All
"dynamic mechanism" should have a governor, that is, a counterpoise to the
predominant impulse. Nuñez writes: "Monarchies need liberal accessory
institutions, and republics restrictive or conservative institutions, without
which the former degenerate into autocracies and the latter into anarchies,
which announce the approach of despotism." In default of the principle of
authority, so necessary and generally so feeble in democracies, Rafael
Nuñez sought for "elements of order in the moral domain."
He became a conservator; he protected religion, like Portales, in order to
give a disorganised nation the firm unity of a law. The ex-radical ordered
the teaching of religion in the schools. "Traitor!" cried his former
supporters, but if he renounced his former dogmas it was in his intellectual
prime, before the lamentable spectacle of an unstable republic.
"Fanaticism," he wrote, "is not religion any more than demagogy is liberty;
but between religion and morality there is an indissoluble bond."
Colombia had need of a stable internal law, of a morality. To obtain order
Dr. Nuñez desired a Catholic unity; he abandoned his radical convictions,
and put his trust in authority, religion, and moderate centralisation. But
were not the articles of his new programme the result of a free examination

of reality and of history? The leaders of the independents were inaugurating
an experimental politics.
He accepted neither abstract principles nor theories imported from other
continents. Free trade obtained in Colombia: it is the English economic
dogma. "With us," explained the statesman, "free mercantile exchange
simply transforms the artisan into a mere proletarian working man, into
food for powder or a demagogue, for free trade practically leaves only two
industries vigorous—commerce and agriculture—to which those who lack
capital and credit cannot as a rule devote themselves." This caudillo wished
to see a real autonomy based on a moderate protectionism: as President he
fostered industries and condemned the bureaucracy; he knew that the latter
favoured revolutions, and that men seldom fight in civil conflicts except to
obtain public employment. "The motives for disturbing the peace," said he,
"will be less and less powerful as the official system ceases to monopolise
the opportunities of work."
Dr. Nuñez was a sociologist; he had studied Comte and Spencer; he
wrote of society and its laws, starting from the liberalism of Lamartine to
arrive at the British prudence of Guizot. An eminent Colombian, Don
Miguel Antonio Caro, called him "the providential and necessary man," and
demanded recognition of his political infallibility.
When he came into power in 1880 he was supported by the independents
and the conservatives; men hoped for reform and peace as the result of his
political action. Under his government public order was untroubled. He
introduced economies in the finances, and realised, like Mosquera, many
works of material progress; he founded a national bank, reformed the
university, and convoked, like Bolivar, a Congress of plenipotentiaries at
Panama.
Dr. Zaldua followed him in 1882. But the influence of the great caudillo
was not yet at an end; he was re-elected in 1884 for a period of two years,
and exercised a moral dictatorship. He proposed to a friendly Congress the
revision of the Constitution of 1863.
He then applied his political ideas, condemning the two years'
presidency, excessive federalism, and the licence and demagogy of the

country; he organised a strong executive, conceded liberty to the Church,
increased the duration of the presidential term, and initiated a prudent
measure of concentration. The Constitution of 1885 ratified the triumph of
the conservatives.
From that time forward the President was imperator; elected for six
years in 1886, re-elected in 1892, he continued to exercise the supreme
power at intervals. He lived at Carthagena, and Vice-Presidents (designated
by himself) replaced him. He became the tutor of the Republic; the
governors were his pro-consuls. He was the last great man produced by
Colombia, that fruitful soil for politicians and men of letters.
Mosquera represented federalism and radicalism; Nuñez unity and
tolerance. Fresh revolutions, conflicts between conservatives and liberals,
have retarded the national development; new chiefs have arisen, demigods
of the world of politics. The conservative work of Nuñez has proved sterile:
Colombia is always the land of eloquence and Jacobinism, extravagant and
excessive as the tropics themselves. She still awaits fresh dictators who
shall organise the democracy of the future.
[1] In his book Desde Cerca (Paris, 1908) General Holguin writes that
Colombia has known 27 civil wars. In that of 1879 she lost 80,000 men.
She has spent 37 million pesos (gold) in revolutions.
[2] There was one demagogue President in this State who, when the
slaves were freed, excited a conflict of castes: General Obaudo.
[3] Rafael Nuñez, La Reforma politica en Colombia, Bogota, 1885.
CHAPTER II
ECUADOR

Religious conflicts—General Flores and his political labours—Garcia-Moreno—The
Republic of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
Ecuador constituted itself a free democracy after a long period of
indecision. Guayaquil aspired to be an independent state; it listened to the
melodious aspirations of its poet, Olmedo, and at other times sought to
unite itself to Peru. Bolivar and La Mar both sought to claim this city,
which a proud provincialism called "the pearl of the Guayas." The vast
ambitions of Bolivar won the day, and Ecuador became a province of
Greater Colombia, under the hegemony of Venezuela or New Granada.
General Juan José Flores, a Venezuelan, and a friend and lieutenant of
the Liberator's, founded the Ecuadorian Republic in 1830. He was the
"Father of the Country," and teacher and guardian of this precocious nation,
as was Paez in Venezuela and Sucre in Bolivia. He governed the country for
fifteen years, being elected President in 1831, in 1839, and in 1843. The
unity of Colombia, maintained by the autocracy of Bolivar, was an obstacle
in the way of Flores' ambitions for Ecuador; he therefore sought to destroy
the federal organisation. Sucre, too, whose young and glorious shoulders
were soon to sustain the authority of a liberator, was opposed to the
ambitions of the Venezuelan caudillo. The latter convoked a Constituent
Assembly at Riobamba. The first national statute of the equatorial republic
was then promulgated: it established a representative government with two
Chambers, an executive independent of these Chambers, and Catholicism as
the sole State religion: these were the bases of the Constitution. Ecuador
once independent, an era of incessant disturbances set in; men fought for
their leaders and for ideas. Flores symbolised the principles of the
conservatives, inimical to radicalism and democracy; he dreamed of a
strong executive, a national religion, and a limited suffrage. His ideal was a
presidency of eight years, and a senate of twelve, an echo of the Bolivian
Constitution. He accepted monarchy as the necessary solution of
Ecuadorian anarchy; he fell because he attempted the restoration of a
superannuated system.
He and Rocafuerte, a liberal caudillo, the leader of a party of cultivated
youth, shared the public functions between them. When Flores was

President, Rocafuerte was governor of Guayaquil; when Rocafuerte ruled,
Flores was commander-in-chief of the army. Both were sent into exile; they
were successively enemies and allies. Flores played the tyrant, suppressed
liberties, and aspired to the dictatorship; when he fell from power he
prepared filibustering expeditions in Europe to be launched against his
country. Spain offered him her aid in 1846. "Treason!" cried the Ecuadorian
patriots. The chimera of a monarchist, the scepticism of an ambitious
foreigner who had fruitlessly created a new country on the ruins of Greater
Colombia, say we, after half a century has elapsed. America was stirred by
the campaign of reconquest which he headed; in 1851 his temerarious plan
had entirely miscarried, and he sought the aid of Peru in order to invade his
country, then a prey to anarchy. He was not successful in the field, and after
a long period of ostracism he joined Garcia-Moreno, the leader of the
conservative forces; under the authority of the latter his influence decayed
and his history ended. His disciple Rocafuerte was an excellent
administrator, who founded schools, organised the National Guard,
established military colonies in the east, partially secularised education,
proved a liberal patron of arts and letters, and commenced the codification
of the civil and penal laws.
In 1851 General Urbina forced a radical government upon Ecuador; he
was the genius of destruction, an intriguer, an ambitious man whose
excesses provoked a conservative reaction. He attempted in vain to
establish a military régime. Garcia-Moreno denounced the treason of Flores
and the radicalism of Urbina, and his moral influence overcame the
prevailing anarchy. This remarkable statesman was born at Guayaquil in
1821; he came of a Castilian family. His mother trained him strictly in
poverty; a priest, Father Bethencourt, directed his later education. In 1836
he entered the University of Quito, and soon became the supervisor of his
own companions—an undergraduate autocrat. Tall, of a severe aspect, the
forehead wide, and the eyes forceful, he was already revealed as a leader of
men. He devoted himself with ardour to mathematics and philosophy; he
acquired general ideas and an analytical turn of mind. Endowed with a
prodigious memory and a vigorous dialectic, always master of himself, he
had every desirable gift. Towards his nineteenth year his chaste youth
passed through a moral crisis. He issued therefrom, according to his
biographer, less the devotee but not less of a believer. Like Goethe, he made

up his mind abruptly. He would not be guilty of timidity; he liberated
himself from the tutelage of the world by dint of heroism; he was Mucius
Scævola before he was Cæsar. His fiery spirit and irreducible will made him
a leader whom all respected, a mystic whom the conservatives acclaimed.
Garcia-Moreno intervened in politics as a journalist; he was a satiric
poet, and founded various polemical sheets: El Zurriago, El Vengador, and
El Diablo. He drafted pamphlets, accused and condemned in prose and in
verse, and wrote his classic Epistle to Fabius concerning the poverty of the
times. His style was steely, energetic, rarely declamatory; he wrote
apostrophes in the manner of Juvenal; he brought into politics a rude
indignation, the rebellious anger of a Hebrew prophet, announcing the final
catastrophe of democracy; as a journalist he represented the national
interests. In 1846, when the threat of a Spanish invasion hung over Ecuador,
Garcia-Moreno roused America by his writings. He was the pacificator of
Guayaquil, where the partisans of Flores had risen in insurrection.
A voyage to Europe brought the young writer into contact with the social
revolution of 1848. The spectacle of triumphant anarchy re-enforced his
conservative opinions. In Ecuador radicalism triumphed in 1850; on his
return the conservative leader protected the Jesuits expelled from Colombia,
demanded the return of their property, and authorised them to found
colleges. He published a pamphlet, Defence of the Jesuits, in which he
called them "the creators of peace and order," and stated with fearless
candour that he was a Catholic and was proud of the fact.
The military-radical dictatorship of Urbina devastated the country; the
"Tauras," a prætorian guard, as brutal as the "Mazorqueros" of Rosas, killed
and pillaged, and were the docile servants of tyranny. Garcia-Moreno then
founded the journal La Nación, and preached the doctrine that there can be
no social progress in a country which does not foster material progress, and
in which a devouring poverty is triumphant. He was arrested and exiled. He
reached Europe once more in 1854, and there gave much time to the study
of European politics. He had been something of a Gallican on the subject of
the relations of Church and State, believing in the supremacy of the civil
power. His opinions changed. Subscribing to the tradition of those Popes
who aspired to empire, he considered that the Church should be absolute

sovereign above all earthly powers. But a triumphant radicalism was
secularising ecclesiastical foundations, and convents were being invaded by
the troops. The conservative caudillo returned from exile in 1856, and was
met with every species of homage; he was elected Mayor of Quito, and
rector of the University. He founded a political party—that of national
union. Elected senator, he called, with the authority of an avenging tribune,
for honest finances, the suppression of the masonic lodges, a law of public
education, and the abolition of the poll tax, which burdened the native, and
represented all the forces of social conservation under the tutelage of the
Church.
The Convention of 1860 made him provisional President, then
constitutional President. Garcia-Moreno inaugurated a clerical semi-
dictatorship after thirty years of revolutions. He did not limit the suffrage;
he depended on the democracy to defeat unpopular demagogues. He
believed that "to moralise a country one must give it a Catholic
Constitution, and, to ensure the necessary cohesion, a statute of unity." He
organised the finances, the army, the schools; he reduced the fiscal
expenditure; founded at Quito a Tribunal of Accounts, which he supervised
himself; he waged a pitiless war upon smuggling, peculation, and
bureaucracy; he built roads connecting the capital with the coast, ruined
militarism, and founded a civil régime.
He was a Catholic President. As in the Colonial period, politics centred
upon the Church. The clergy taught and legislated. "The Church," said
Garcia-Moreno, "must march side by side with the civil power under
conditions of true independence." He entrusted public education to the
religious congregations, and prepared to sign a concordat with the Church;
Catholicism was to be recognised as the State religion, to the exclusion of
all foreign sects and cults, and the bishops would supervise the colleges and
universities; they would choose the textbooks to be used, and the
government, like the Spanish Inquisition, would see that no forbidden
works were introduced. The ecclesiastical charter would be renewed, and as
a set-off the government would annul the exequatur, the authorisation
which the American governments accorded to the pontifical bulls, that these
might be obeyed. More Catholic than the Sacred College, Garcia-Moreno
insisted upon the reform of the clergy, despite the hesitation of the Pope.

Once the Concordat was signed; Pius IX. created new dioceses, and
ecclesiastical courts, which tried all causes relating to the faith—to religious
matters in general, and to marriage and divorce. The conservative leader
aspired to a Catholic Imperialism. He intervened in the domestic affairs of
Colombia, where a radical President was in power; he eulogised the
Mexican Empire, which was to deliver the country from the "excesses of a
rapacious, immoral and turbulent demagogy." He dreamed of an America
enfeoffed to the Papacy.
Presidents followed him who were weak in the face of anarchy: Borrero,
Carrion, Espinosa. The great caudillo did not lose his influence; many times
he was forced to leave his retreat in order to pacify a province or direct a
political party. In 1860 he returned to power, to lay the foundations of a
stable theocracy. His governmental programme read like an episcopal
address. As essential articles appeared "the respect and protection of the
Catholic Church, unshakable attachment to the Holy See, education based
on morality and faith, and liberty for all and in everything, excepting crime
and criminals." He declared that civilisation, "the fruit of Catholicism,
degenerates and becomes impure in proportion as it departs from Catholic
principles"; that "religion is the sole bond which is left to us in this country,
divided as it is by the interests of parties, races, and beliefs." The new
Constitution was to conform to the principles of the Syllabus; in Ecuador no
one was to be elected or eligible who did not profess the Catholic religion,
and whosoever should belong to a sect condemned by the Church would
lose his civil rights. In his mystic ardour, he consecrated his country to the
Sacred Heart of Jesus, and in 1873 he protested, in a note addressed to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the King of Italy, against the taking of Rome
and the confiscation of the Papal States. His ideal was the monarchy of
Philip II.; the Jesuit Empire of Paraguay; the return of the Middle Ages, and
a conventual peace. Like Rafael Nuñez and Portales, he believed that
"religion is the only national tradition in these democracies at the mercy of
anarchy—the creative agent, the instrument of political unity." Religion is
the foundation of morality, and "the absence of morality is the ruin of the
Republic; there are no good manners and morals without a pure clergy, and
a Church free of all official tutelage." A moralising despot, he repressed
concubinage, and imposed Catholic marriage or chastity upon his subjects.
Virtue, faith, and order: there was his ideal.

The authoritative Constitution which he promulgated is analogous to the
Chilian statute of 1883. The President was re-eligible; his mandate was for
ten years; he could govern for a third period after his immediate successor.
The government was at the head of the army, and appointed all provincial
authorities; political rebellion was punished as high treason. The legislative
term was six years for deputies and nine for senators. Garcia-Moreno
strictly observed this new law; he made war upon revolutionaries, and
condemned the leaders of revolts and conspiracies to death. Internal order
re-established, he commenced a series of vast reforms in the national
finances, in public education, and in legislation; he opened schools, re-
established the death penalty, sent officers to Prussia to follow the military
manoeuvres, reorganised the school of medicine, founded an astronomical
observatory, and attracted German Jesuits who were to teach physics and
chemistry. He proved himself a potent organiser: "Twenty-five years are
needed," he said, "to establish my system." Re-elected in 1875, he was
quickly overthrown by his enemies. He resisted to the death; the dagger of
an enemy struck him down in the mournful solitude of the plaza of Quito,
and he fell near the cathedral in which he had worshipped. A long silence, a
time of deep mourning, followed the death of the caudillo; he was named a
second Gregory the Great, the regenerator of his country, the martyr of
Catholic civilisation.
Indefatigable, stoical, just, strong in decision, admirably logical in his
life, Garcia-Moreno was one of the greatest personalities of American
history. He was no tyrant without doctrines, like Guzman-Blanco or Porfirio
Diaz. In fifteen years (1859-74) he completely transformed his little country
according to a vast political system which only death prevented him from
realising. A mystic of the Spanish type, he was not content with sterile
contemplation; he needed action; he was an organiser and a creator.
He felt the aid and the continual presence of God; he asked his friends
for their prayers, and read daily in The Imitation of Christ. He was even too
much of a Catholic for the conservatives; he was often to be seen carrying
the daïs in procession. "A Christian Hercules, a disciple of Charlemagne
and St. Louis," writes Father Berthe, his ingenuous and enthusiastic
biographer. "A hero of Jesus Christ, not of Plutarch," said Louis Veuillot in
a dithyramb; while his enemies, Montalvo and Moncayo, accused him of

treason, Jesuitism, and cruelty. Montalvo recognised, however, in the
conservative President, "a sublime intelligence, a superiority to every trial,
a strong, imperious, invincible will." Superior to exaggerated eulogy and
acerbated criticism, Garcia-Moreno represented the great civilising
principles in the Ecuadorian democracy; unity, the struggle against a
militarism of thirty years' standing, material progress, religion, morality,
and strong government against licence and demagogy. As an autocrat he
resembled all great American leaders; but he surpassed them in idealism, by
the logic of his actions and the originality of his essay in theocracy. With
Philip II. and the Paraguayan Jesuits, he believed Catholicism to be an
instrument of culture, and his policy was for fifteen years the exaltation of
that religion. Only Nuñez and Balmaceda brought equally coherent ideas to
the task of government. No one in Ecuador, neither Veintemilla, nor
Borrero, nor Alfaro, could gather up the inheritance of this admirable
despot. Carlyle, had he known him, would have set him in his gallery of
heroes.
CHAPTER III
THE ANARCHY OF THE TROPICS—CENTRAL
AMERICA—HAYTI—SAN DOMINGO
Tyrannies and revolutions—The action of climate and miscegenation—A republic of
negroes: Hayti.
In Central America and the islands of the Antilles civil wars are the
result not merely of racial conflict, but also of the enervating action of the
Tropics. Precocious, sensual, impressionable, the Americans of these vast
territories devote their energies to local politics. Industry, commerce, and
agriculture are in a state of decay, and the unruly imagination of the Creole

expends itself in constitutions, programmes, and lyrical discourse; in these
regions anarchy is sovereign mistress.
Five republics came into being here, which have lived in a continual
state of conflict, their aim being political domination. Internal disorders and
international wars are continual. Ambitious generals have sometimes forced
a provisional unity upon the continent, but it is soon divided by the anarchy
and dictatorships which continually overwhelm the soil of the Tropics.
It is impossible to distinguish a military period and an industrial period
in the history of Central America. Intellectuals and generals govern
alternately, it is true, but thanks to identical methods; they all exercise the
same sanguinary tutelage. A few dictators whose rule has been slightly
more prolonged have at times contrived to increase the number of schools
or develop the national finances, but personal initiative and the importation
of foreign capital are equally out of the question under the rule of
autocracies which govern solely by grace of the military element. Liberty,
wealth, and human rights are the appanage of inhuman dictators.
The Republic was proclaimed and the political Constitution adopted in
Central America on the 10th of April, 1825. It was then that the autonomous
life of the five united provinces commenced. General Manuel Joseph was
the first President of Central America. The Federal Statute of 1824
attributed all powers to Congress: it initiated a parliamentary dictatorship.
As against the popular assembly the Executive was powerless, and the
Senate, to which the Constitution confided the final sanction of the laws
promulgated by Congress, was weak in point of numbers. As in all
republics, the government was popular, representative, and federal. The
equality of all citizens and the abolition of slavery being decreed, it was a
new era that opened, liberal and romantic.
In the Lower Chamber Guatemala had the majority, and from this
superiority ensued a tendency to political domination which provoked a
long series of internal wars. Here was no conflict of nations, but of the
interests of rival provinces or the quarrels of individual generals. Salvador
wished to realise its autonomy; a virile and well-peopled republic, she could
not readily accept the hegemony of Guatemala. Here is one aspect of this
monotonous history: the frequent wars which divided Guatemala and

Salvador. They struggled for supremacy, for moral tutelage. The federal tie
survived, and the Assemblies multiplied; there were General Assemblies
and Provisional Assemblies. Suddenly one of the States declared void the
pact which united it to the other republics: Congress was dissolved, and at
once re-elected. There was a perpetual confusion of powers.
During the first twenty years of liberty the anarchical instinct which
sought to separate the republics and the calm reason which sought to unite
them under the pressure of powerful traditions were in mutual conflict. It
was the conflict of nationalism and unity. As in Chili the Carreras opposed
the authority of San Martin, as in Venezuela Paez rebelled against the
unification of Bolivar, so Carrera the Guatemalan general warred against
Morazan, the caudillo of the Unitarian party, during twelve years of a
struggle of province with province.
However, the States separated one from another, and united anew under
the domination of a theoretical federation; men still legislated in
Congresses, and built the future nation with the ardour of Jacobins: eleven
Assemblies of the Confederation prepared codes and statutes. One essential
trait of the new laws was their secular spirit, and their tendency to
aggressive action against the clergy. Even sooner than Mexico these
assemblies promulgated the laws of the Reformation; even before the era of
religious quarrels opened in Colombia the radical fervour which was
contemporary with the liberalism of Rivadavia was at work in Central
America. For that matter, it appeared to be a remnant of the old "regalism."
In 1829 the Assembly suppressed all convents of monks; in 1830 Honduras
declared that secular priests might marry; in Guatemala it was enacted that
the sons of members of the clergy ordained in sacris were necessarily their
heirs. In 1832 toleration was proclaimed, but, on the other hand, the States
were continually fighting over the question of patronage, and the
antagonism between the State, which wished to impose its tutelage, and the
rebellious Church was perpetual.
Two influences dominated the minds of the new law-makers: English
utilitarianism and Yankee federalism. Here French ideas were not
predominant. But the tropical republics could not assimilate the severe
English doctrine. In vain, in 1832, did Congress go into mourning on the

occasion of the death of Bentham; in vain was absolute liberty of testimony
proclaimed in Guatemala. The double and inevitable influence of tradition
and race cannot be destroyed by means of improvised laws.
Central America borrowed from the United States their mode of
suffrage, the federal system, the organisation of the jury, and the codes of
Louisiana. But popular agitation condemned the institution of the jury; the
codes borrowed from the United States did not annihilate barbarism, and
the federal system was powerless to enforce unity.
In 1842 this troublous Confederation of sister nations was dissolved.
Once these nations were definitely separated, what we may call the period
of provincial history commenced; it was confused, yet identical in the case
of the various States. Above the anarchical multitude rose energetic
caudillos; necessary tyrants, who endeavoured to enforce order in the
interior, and to organise the national finances.
The history of Costa Rica forms the only exception among these
republics oscillating between tyranny and demagogy. In this country were
no clearly divided social castes, no great capitalists, and no crowds of
proletariats. A small homogeneous State, in which men were always known
as hermanicos ("brotherlies") because their interests and their ideas were
identical, Costa Rica seemed to justify the classic idea which associated the
success of the republican system with limited territories and small human
groups. Work, unity, and lasting peace have been the characteristics of
social evolution in Costa Rica. While neighbouring States were at war this
tiny republic was progressing peacefully.
Salvador also developed normally without the discords of Nicaragua or
Guatemala. Race explains the differences to be observed in these great
theatres of political experience; in Salvador and Costa Rica the Spanish
element was predominant, the castes were confounded, the population was
dense, and the birth-rate high. In Honduras mulattos abounded, and in
Nicaragua and Guatemala the races were mixed, and the Indians were
superior in point of numbers. Among these five tropical republics those
which progressed were those in which the race was homogeneous, or in
which the Iberian conquerors outnumbered the Indians, negroes, and
mulattos.

The very tropical anarchy which has turned Central America into a
perpetual theatre of civil wars has also continually divided the two zones of
the ancient Hispaniola: San Domingo and Hayti. In the one the Spaniards
ruled, in the other the French, and the antagonism of these two Powers was
of long duration. Hayti is a negro State, and San Domingo refused to submit
to the tyranny of ex-slaves. Conflicts of a political origin were
supplemented by the warfare of castes. Caudillos and tyrants have
succeeded one another in the government; revolutions and domestic wars
have continually troubled these two small States, over which the United
States have gradually extended their tutelage.
As early as the seventeenth century the French were established in
Hispaniola, on the northern coast; bold Normans, herdsmen and shepherds,
the celebrated buccaneers, had founded a kind of forest republic ruled by
special laws. In 1691 this territory was a French colony, and in 1726 it
contained 30,000 free inhabitants and 100,000 slaves, black or mulatto. The
Creoles, according to the chroniclers of the time, were proud and
inconstant, idle and sceptical as to religion. The negroes, chiefly occupied
in servile labour, superstitious and imprudent, formed the bulk of the slaves.
A Jesuit, Father Charlevoix, who had observed them, wrote in 1725:
"Properly speaking we may say that the negroes between Cap Blanc and
Cap Noir have been born only for slavery."[1] It was said that the negroes
were wont to celebrate the rites of a secret worship in the forest, and were
preparing to fight for their liberty. They hated the other castes, the whites,
the free negroes, and the mulattos; and the Hayti of the future was born of
this racial hatred. Ex-slaves governed the isle, and found in bloody
hecatombs revenge for their long servitude. These formed the oligarchy, an
intolerable and intolerant aristocracy, inimical to whites and mulattos. Like
the revolts of slaves in the ancient world, these rebellions of American serfs
were the occasion of wars of extermination. The French Revolution
provoked them by its Utopian liberalism: Mirabeau and Lafayette were
friends of the negro, and the Convention decreed the abolition of slavery in
the colonies in 1794. The slaves had risen already, in 1791, at the first
rumours of the risings in France, burning property and killing their rulers.
They therefore attained political and civil liberty suddenly, with no
prudent transitions. A caudillo, Toussaint Louverture, was the hero of the

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
testbankfan.com

Operating Systems 3rd Edition Nutt Solutions Manual

More Related Content

Similar to Operating Systems 3rd Edition Nutt Solutions Manual (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Operating Systems 3rd Edition Nutt Solutions Manual