http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6454-0343
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
SUMMARY
This article analyses the debates that took place in the Congress of Argentina between the enactment of the constitution in 1853 and the end of the century, regarding the powers of the executive and legislative branches for intervening in the provinces in case of internal conflict or external attack. It focuses on the controversies arising from different bills submitted to congress in order to enact a general intervention act to resolve, once and for all, the powers of each branch in that matter. Although those bills did not pass, a study of them shows the existing disagreements about the operation of the federal system and the separation of powers. Some of the differences were linked to the discussion of American constitutional doctrine in which Argentina had been engaged since the mid nineteenth century in order to solve the dilemmas of organizing its political institutions. This article claims that this analysis contributes to ongoing debates on the roots of political conflict in Argentina by showing the importance of institutional controversies, and argues that it is necessary to address the role of congress and of doctrinal dissent in order to revise the role that historiography has given to the disputes over power as an overall explanation for political confrontations.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Victor Uribe, Marcela Ternavasio, Eduardo Zimmermann and Israel Arroyo for their insightful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.
ORCID
Laura Cucchi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6454-0343
Ana L. Romero http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4269-1893
Notes
1 In 1884, the ‘national territories’ were created after the military occupation of indigenous lands. Unlike the provinces, these territories were directly administered by the national government. On the formation of the Argentine federal system, see E. Gallo, ‘Liberalismo, centralismo y federalismo: Alberdi y Alem en el 80’, Investigaciones y Ensayos 45, (1996), pp. 373–86; E. Zimmermann, ‘El poder judicial, la construcción del estado, y el federalismo: Argentina, 1860–1880’, in E. Posada Carbó (ed.), In Search of a New Order: Essays on the Politics of Nineteenth-century Latin America (London, 1998), pp. 131–52; O. Oszlak, La formación del Estado argentino (Buenos Aires, 1999); T. Halperín Donghi, Alberdi, Sarmiento y Mitre: tres proyectos futuros para la era constitucional (Santa Fe, 2004); E.L. Gibson and T.G. Falleti, ‘Unity by the Stick: Regional Conflict and the Origins of Argentine Federalism’, in E.L. Gibson (ed.), Federalism and Democracy in Latin America (Baltimore, 2004), pp. 226–54; B. Bragoni and E. Míguez (eds), Un nuevo orden político. Provincias y Estado Nacional, 1852–1880 (Buenos Aires, 2010); P. Alonso and B. Bragoni (eds), El sistema federal argentino. Debates y coyunturas (1860–1910) (Buenos Aires, 2015); E. Zimmermann, ‘Soberanía nacional y soberanías provinciales ante la Corte Suprema de Justicia. Argentina, siglo XIX’, Estudios Sociales 48, (2015), pp. 11–37; J.C. Chiaramonte, Raíces históricas del federalismo latinoamericano (Buenos Aires, 2016).
2 N. Botana, ‘El federalismo liberal en Argentina: 1852–1930’, in M. Carmagnani (ed.), Federalismos latinoamericanos: México, Brasil, Argentina (Mexico City, 1993), pp. 224–59; G. Negretto and J.A. Aguilar, ‘Rethinking the Legacy of the Liberal State in Latin America: The Cases of Argentina (1853–1912) and Mexico (1857–1910)’, Journal of Latin American Studies 32, (2000), pp. 361–97.
3 The Partido Autonomista Nacional, which ruled Argentina until 1916. On this issue, see: P. Alonso and M. Ternavasio, ‘El liberalismo y los ensayos políticos en el siglo XIX’, in E. Posada Carbó and I. Jaksic (eds), Liberalismo y poder. Latinoamérica en el siglo XIX (Buenos Aires, 2011), pp. 279–319.
4 On the role of the US model in the constitutional design of the Latin American republics, see: J.L. Romero, ‘La independencia de Hispanoamérica y el modelo político norteamericano’, in Situaciones e ideologías en Latinoamérica (Buenos Aires, 1986), pp. 88–121; R. Piza Rocafort, ‘Influencia de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos en las Constituciones de Europa y América’, Cuadernos del CAPEL 23, (1987), pp. 53–82; J.A. Aguilar Rivera, En pos de la quimera. Reflexiones sobre el experimento constitucional atlántico (Mexico City, 2000) and Ausentes del universo. Reflexiones sobre el pensamiento político hispanoamericano en la era de la construcción nacional, 1821–1850 (Mexico City, 2012); R. Rojas, Repúblicas de aire. Utopía y desencanto en la revolución de Hispanoamérica (Buenos Aires, 2010); J.B. Alberdi and D.F. Sarmiento, Constitución y política (Buenos Aires, 2012). Argentine historiography has analysed the constituent debates of 1853–60, but it has paid less attention to the role of American constitutional theory in the regulating laws that later on provided for the application of constitutional provisions. See: L.H. Sommariva, La intervención Federal Argentina comparada con la Norteamericana y la Suiza (Buenos Aires, 1935); J.V. Sola, Intervención federal en las provincias (Buenos Aires, 1982); N. Botana, La Tradición Republicana. Alberdi, Sarmiento y las ideas políticas de su tiempo (Buenos Aires, 1984); R. Zorraquín Becú, ‘Las fuentes de la Constitución de 1853’, Revista de Historia del Derecho 16, (1988), pp. 309–46; J. Adelman, ‘Between Order and Liberty: Juan Bautista Alberdi and the Intellectual Origins of Argentine Constitutionalism’, Latin American Research Review 42, (2007), pp. 86–110; E. Zimmermann, ‘Historia global y cultura constitucional: Una nota sobre la traducción y circulación de doctrina jurídica en la Argentina del siglo diecinueve’, Nuevo Mundo/Mundos nuevos, (2014), http://nuevomundo.revues.org/66772
5 I. Arroyo García, ‘El péndulo: consenso y coacción a través de la intervención federal en México, Brasil y Argentina’, in R. Forte and G. Guajardo (eds), Consenso y coacción. Estado e instrumentos de control político y social en México y América Latina (siglos XIX y XX) (Mexico City, 2000), pp. 359–87; P. Alonso, Jardines secretos legitimaciones públicas. El Partido Autonomista Nacional y la política argentina de fines del siglo XIX (Buenos Aires, 2010).
6 For exceptions to this trend, see: L.C. Fennel, ‘Congress in the Argentine Political System: An Appraisal’, in W.H. Argor, Latin American Legislatures: Their Role and Influence. Analyses for Nine Countries (London, 1971), pp. 139–71; G. Molinelli, La interpelación parlamentaria: un análisis de datos concretos (Buenos Aires, 1973) and Presidentes y Congresos en Argentina: Mitos y realidades (Buenos Aires, 1991); A.M. Mustapic, ‘Conflictos institucionales en el primer gobierno radical’, Desarrollo Económico 24, (1984), pp. 85–108 and ‘Oficialistas y diputados: las relaciones Ejecutivo – Legislativo en la Argentina’, Desarrollo Económico 39, (2000), pp. 571–95; J. Miller, ‘The Authority of a Foreign Talisman: A Study of US Constitutional Practice as Authority in Nineteenth Century Argentina and the Argentine Elite’s Leap of Faith’, The American University Law Review 46, (1997), pp. 1484–572; P. Alonso, Entre la revolución y las urnas. Los orígenes de la Unión Cívica Radical y la política argentina en los años noventa (Buenos Aires, 2000). Argentina adopted a bicameral congress. The senate represented the provinces and, after the federalization of Buenos Aires in 1880, also the city of Buenos Aires. The chamber of deputies represented the nation; its composition varied over the years, in terms of changes in population density.
7 On discussions regarding the drafting and interpretation of article six, see: L.H. Sommariva, Historia de las intervenciones federales en las provincias (Buenos Aires, 1931), pp. 5–9 and 19–25; N. Botana, El orden conservador. La política argentina entre 1880 y 1916 (Buenos Aires, 1977), pp. 121–6.
8 Sommariva notes that during the ‘national organization’ (1853–80), a more aggressive (interventionist) type of federalism prevailed. This interventionism declined towards the early seventies and re-emerged strongly in the nineties. In this regard, the ‘aggressive’ nature of the federal system and a greater involvement of the executive branch seem to have emerged during the most critical moments of political unrest in Argentina.
9 On the institutional organization of the Argentine confederation, see: A.L. Lanteri, Se hace camino al andar. Dirigencia e instituciones nacionales en la Confederación (Argentina, 1852–1862) (Rosario, 2015).
10 Sommariva, Historia, p. 344. A similar request was made in 1864 by the minister of the interior, Guillermo Rawson: Ministerio del Interior, Memoria del Ministerio del Interior de la República Argentina presentada al Congreso Nacional de 1864 (Buenos Aires, 1864), p. XV.
11 Law No. 320½ stipulated that any intervention must be authorized by a special law passed by congress or, during its recess, by the executive branch, provided that it was held accountable to the legislature, once it reconvened. Law No. 316, authorizing the executive to mobilize militias to enforce federal public laws, to quell civil war between two or more provinces, or repel foreign invasions, also required accountability. Ministerio del Interior, Intervención federal en las provincias: proyectos de ley orgánica, antecedentes nacionales y extranjeros (Buenos Aires, 1933).
12 Congreso Nacional/Cámara de Senadores, Sesión 1869 (Buenos Aires, 1869), pp. 591–6. Mitre was the leader of the Nationalist Liberal Party of Buenos Aires, which governed Argentina from 1862 to 1868. Sarmiento did not represent a party but had come to the presidency driven by a group of army officers and by the agreement between Mitre’s Nationalist Party and the other party of Buenos Aires, the Autonomous Party.
13 Ordinary Congressional Sessions took place from 1 May to 30 September.
14 Sommariva, Historia, p. 380.
15 On the US politics of the time, see: H. Jaffa, A New Birth of Freedom (Lanham, MD, 2004); T. Bender, A Nation among Nations: America’s Place in World History (New York, 2006); J. McPherson, Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution (New York and Oxford, 2009).
16 Congreso Nacional, Sesión 1869, p. 593.
17 Congreso Nacional, Discusión sobre el Proyecto de Ley ordenando la intervención en la Provincia de San Juan (Buenos Aires, 1869), p. 21.
18 Botana, Tradición.
19 Congreso Nacional, Discusión, p. 593.
20 M. Ruiz Moreno, La intervención armada. Única causa de la guerra de Entre-Ríos (Buenos Aires, 1870), p. 2.
21 Comisión de Estudios Constitucionales, Materiales para la reforma constitucional (Buenos Aires, 1957), p. 108.
22 Sommariva, Historia, pp. 323–4.
23 M.A. Urrutia, Intervenciones del gobierno federal en las provincias (Buenos Aires, 1904), p. 408.
24 This power was first used by Roca in 1885 during a conflict in Corrientes as a shortcut for the executive to take control of provincial territories without resorting to a method of federal intervention that implied its accountability to congress. It was often used during Carlos Pellegrini’s (1890–92) and Luis Sáenz Peña’s (1892–95) presidencies to control oppositional uprisings.
25 Furthermore, the executive office also closed the army recruiting offices in the provinces in order to eliminate the interference of officers who sometimes used their military power to support armed insurrections in the provinces. Executive Decree 2024, 27 January 1887. E. Domínguez, Colección de Leyes y decretos militares concernientes al Ejército y Armada de la República Argentina, 1810–1896 (Buenos Aires, 1898), p. 210. On the relationship between the executive and the army: H. Quinterno, Fuego Amigo: El Ejército y el poder presidencial en la Argentina (1880–1912) (Buenos Aires, 2014).
26 Botana, El orden, pp. 126–37.
27 Modernism was a political party that brought together members of PAN who were critical of this party’s political methods. Alonso, Jardines.
28 On the uprisings from 1890 and 1893 and the emergence of the UCR, see: Alonso, Entre la revolución.
29 Congreso Nacional, Diario de Sesiones de la Cámara de Diputados, Año 1893 (Buenos Aires, 1893) p. 89; Sommariva, Historia, pp. 189–271.
30 Sommariva, Historia, p. 244; Sola, Intervención, pp. 149–50.
31 In his opening address to congress in 1893 and 1894, President Sáenz Peña explained the need to provide a solid legal foundation for the actions of the executive branch in the provinces. H. Mabragaña, Los Mensajes: historia del desenvolvimiento de la nación argentina, redactada cronológicamente por sus gobernantes, 1810–1910, 6 vols, vol. 2 (Buenos Aires, 1910). The opening address is the only time when the president speaks directly to congress. The daily communication between the two branches is handled through the president’s cabinet.
32 Alonso, Entre la revolución, pp. 234–5.
33 Congreso Nacional, Diario de Sesiones de la Cámara de Diputados, Año 1894 (Buenos Aires, 1894), p. 568.
34 Congreso Nacional, Sesiones Diputados 1894, p. 378.
35 Congreso Nacional, Sesiones Diputados 1894, p. 736.
36 Congreso Nacional, Sesiones Diputados 1894, pp. 733–4.
37 Congreso Nacional, Diario de Sesiones de la Cámara de Senadores (Buenos Aires, 1894), pp. 554–60. The American examples mostly used in the debate were the conflicts in Rhode Island (1842), Abraham Lincoln’s military action during the American Civil War (1861–65) and the crisis in Louisiana during the Hayes Administration (1877–81). Sommariva, La intervención federal.
38 Alonso, Entre la Revolución; I. Rojkind and A.L. Romero, ‘Renuncias presidenciales, opinión pública y legitimidad en el “quinquenio difícil” (1890–1895)’, PolHis, Revista Bibliográfica del Programa Interuniversitario de Historia Política 11, (2013), pp. 94–105. The constitution states that: ‘Either House shall summon the Ministers of the Executive Power to receive such explanations or reports as it may deem necessary.’ This is one of the instruments used by congress to control the actions of the executive, although – unlike parliamentary systems – it does not provide it with the authority to dismiss ministers. This article was taken from the French Constitution of 1791, making it an exception in the Argentine national charter, which was largely inspired in its US counterpart. Under President Sáenz Peña there were seven interpellations: three promoted by the lower house and four by the senate. Five of them were directly related to military actions by the president in the provinces. Molinelli, La interpelación parlamentaria.
39 E. Gallo, ‘Un quinquenio difícil: las presidencias de Luis Sáenz Peña y Carlos Pellegrini’, in G. Ferrari and E. Gallo (eds), La Argentina del ochenta al Centenario (Buenos Aires, 1980), pp. 215–43; Alonso, Entre la Revolución.
40 G. Ferrari, Conflicto y paz con Chile (1898–1903) (Buenos Aires, 1968), pp. 8–14.
41 Alonso, Jardines. The border issue between Argentina and Chile had been negotiated for more than half a century and remained stable since the treaty of 1881, which set the border along the Andes mountain range. In the 1890s this treaty was challenged by both countries. Set against the backdrop of the imperialist race at the end of the century, tension grew between both countries, which several times were on the brink of war. In May 1902, Argentina and Chile signed the May covenants, providing that border issues not settled by negotiation would be submitted to international arbitration, as happened in 1971 and 1984.
42 Between 1895 and 1900 there were nine interventions: six were decided by congress and three by presidential order (because the legislative was in recess and the executive considered that immediate action was required). In four of them, the commissioners took over the government of the provinces and reorganized the three branches of government (Santiago del Estero 1895, La Rioja 1896, San Luis 1896, Catamarca 1899). Sommariva, Historia, pp. 273–310.
43 Far from losing its relevance, the issue was doggedly debated in university classrooms. See: Lessons of Constitutional Law (Buenos Aires, 1896) by Manuel Montes de Oca, and The Manual of the Argentine Constitution (Buenos Aires, 1897) by Joaquín V. Gonzalez. Several doctoral dissertations at the University of Buenos Aires have also focused on the issue of federal interventions since 1893. M. Candioti, Bibliografía doctoral de la Universidad de Buenos Aires y catálogo cronológico de las tesis en su primer centenario. 1821–1920 (Buenos Aires, 1920); J.C. Chiaramonte and P. Buchbinder, ‘Provincias, caudillos, nación y la historiografía constitucionalista argentina, 1853–1930’, Anuario del IEHS, N°VII, Tandil (1992), pp. 93–120.
44 Article 75, paragraph 31, of the Argentine Constitution (amended in 1994) established that it is the responsibility of Congress ‘to intervene in a province or the City of Buenos Aires [and to] approve or revoke any interventions ordered by the executive during parliamentary recess’. Again, this constitutional provision was not followed by a regulatory law to specify intervention procedures.
45 This practice became more frequent in the twentieth century, especially during the first presidency of Hipólito Yrigoyen (1916–22). Mustapic, ‘Conflictos institucionales’, p. 99.
46 H. Sabato, Buenos Aires en armas. La revolución de 1880 (Buenos Aires, 2008).
47 Alonso, Jardines.
48 Congreso Nacional, Sesiones Diputados 1893, p. 372.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Laura Cucchi
Laura Cucchi is a postdoctoral fellow of the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) at the Instituto de Historia Argentina y Americana ‘Dr. Emilio Ravignani’, University of Buenos Aires (UBA) in Argentina. In 2011, she obtained a PhD at the UBA, where she teaches Argentine history and the history of Argentine and Latin American thought. Her main field of research is the political history of modern Argentina. She has published Antagonismo, legitimidad y poder político en Córdoba, 1877–1880 (Bahía Blanca, 2015) and several articles in journals and collective volumes. Her current research project focuses on the construction of modern parliamentary practices in Argentina in the late nineteenth century.
Ana L. Romero
Ana Leonor Romero is a PhD candidate at the University of Buenos Aires (UBA) in Argentina. She is the reviews editor of PolHis, Revista Bibliográfica del Programa Interuniversitario de Historia Política, and she teaches the history of political systems and an introduction to the study of state and society at the UBA. She has participated in several research projects and published articles in specialized journals. Her current research at the Instituto de Historia Argentina y Americana ‘Dr. Emilio Ravignani’ (UBA) focuses on the circulation of ideas between Argentina, Spain and the United States in the late nineteenth century.