We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
A nation's image of its past helps to determine its conduct through continuing history. When this image is particularly sharp, it becomes a sacred reference for the formulation of policy. A national image is a melange of fact, fancy, and fiction. Carefully preserved in folklore and enthroned as tradition, this image can be invoked for political purposes that transcend party and class factionalism, and serve to unite the nation in a supreme sacrifice for national purpose.
Paraguay has such an image. In its past the Paraguay of 1928 saw a peaceful, progressive people who had been plunged into a war of extermination. “Veneer ó morir!” was no idle slogan of another era. It was a destroyed, shattered Paraguay that died with the Marshal on the banks of the Aquidabán. From the terrible conflict of 1864-1870, Paraguay emerged with large areas of its claimed territory forever lost, and with much of the rest in jeopardy. The arbitration of 1878, which eliminated one greedy enemy, was still fresh in Paraguayan memories when the Vanguardia incident of 1928 once more sounded the alarm. In the intervening years an image of the Paraguayan War had taken shape.
1 Box was well aware of the complexities facing the scholar in his search for causes; but Box concluded that López was the threat to the great work of Argentine liberals who sought to introduce Argentina to enlightened government.
2 See González, J[uan] Natalicio, Solano López, diplomático (Asunción, 1948), pp. 66–67.Google Scholar
3 This appears to be the view favored by the brilliant Cardozo, Efraim in Paraguay independiente (Barcelona, 1949), pp. 174–197.Google Scholar
4 There was, of course, the ineffective combination of Corrientes and Paraguay against the Confederation in 1846.
5 González, , Solano López, diplomático, p. 67.Google Scholar
6 Beverina, Juan, La guerra del Paraguay. Las operaciones de la guerra en territorio argentino y brasileño (7 vols.; Buenos Aires, 1921–1932), I, 94, n. 1.Google Scholar Hereafter cited as Beverina, Guerra del Paraguay.
7 James B. Bowlin to Lewis Cass, Buenos Ayres, January 1, 1859; id. to id., Asunción, January 25, 1859; id. to id., Enroute to Buenos Ayres, February 17, 1859, Diplomatic Despatches, Paraguay and Uruguay, National Archives, Washington, D. C. Hereafter cited as DDPU. For a complete account of the Bowlin mission, see Ynsfran, Pablo Max, La expedición norte-americana contra el Paraguay, 1858–1859 [Biblioteca de Historia y Arqueología Americana] (2 vols.; Mexico and Buenos Aires, 1954–1958).Google Scholar
8 There are many accounts of this mediation. See particularly Bray, Arturo, Solano López, soldado de la gloria y el infortunio (2nd ed.; Asunción and Buenos Aires, 1958), pp. 86–95 Google Scholar; González, , Solano López, diplomático, pp. 81–120 Google Scholar. Another Paraguayan has written: “And the prestige acquired by the Paraguayan mediator on that historic occasion was perhaps one of the causes for Brazil’s condemning Paraguay to death in a very near future. The newspapers of Buenos Aires, in the exaltation of their gratitude to the Paraguayan mediator, saluted him as the leader destined to form a single and powerful nation from these peoples of the Plata. And it was just this that Brazil had to stop at all costs …” ( González, Teodosio, Infortunios del Paraguay [Buenos Aires, 1931], p. 29).Google Scholar
9 The Congress on March 6, 1865, enacted the law making Paraguay’s, López first marshal. El Semanario, March 13, 1865, Supplement to March 11.Google Scholar
10 Francisco Solano López and Admiral Pedro Ferreira de Oliveira signed a treaty in 1855 which Brazil rejected. See González, , Solano López, diplomático, pp. 30–36 Google Scholar, and Cardozo, , Paraguay independiente, pp. 131–137.Google Scholar
11 Cardozo, , Paraguay independiente, pp. 151–152 Google Scholar; Box, Pelham Horton, The Origins of the Paraguayan War [University of Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences, XV, nos. 3 and 4] (Urbana, 1927), p. 48.Google Scholar
12 Washburn to William H. Seward, Asunción, November 30, 1864, DDPU.
13 Washburn to Seward, Asunción, April 2, 1862, ibid.
14 Cardozo, , Paraguay independiente, pp. 175–180.Google Scholar
15 Beverina, , Guerra del Paraguay, 1, 45–48 Google Scholar; de Herrera, Luís Alberto, El drama del 65 (La culpa Mitrista) (Buenos Aires, 1943), p. 9.Google Scholar
16 Félix Egusquiza was the commercial agent in Buenos Aires and Juan José Brizuela served as confidential agent in Montevideo.
17 Washburn to Seward, Asunción, October 6, 1863, DDPU.
18 Lapido arrived at Asunción on July 9, was received on July 13, and left Asunción on November 21, 1863. H[ipólito] Quell, Sánchez, Política internacional del Paraguay— La junta de 1811, Francia y los López (2d ed.; Buenos Aires, 1945), p. 207.Google Scholar
19 Bray, , Solano López, p. 130 Google Scholar; Báez, Cecilio, Historia diplomática del Paraguay (2 vols.; Asunción, 1932), II, 112 Google Scholar. Box believed that Herrera, while in Paraguay in 1862, had learned how to influence Paraguayans. His instructions to Uruguayan agents in 1863 and 1864 strongly emphasized the equilibrium line (The Origins of the Paraguayan War, p. 158). For Lapido’s mission, see Cardozo, Efraim, Vísperas de la guerra del Paraguay (Buenos Aires, 1954), Ch. VI.Google Scholar
20 Báez, , Historia diplomática del Paraguay, 2, 112–113.Google Scholar
21 Washburn to Seward, Asunción, October 29, 1863, DDPU.
22 Box, The Origins of the Paraguayan War, passim.
23 Mitre and López certainly didn’t understand each other and so held unfounded suspicions. See Cardozo, , Vísperas de la guerra del Paraguay, pp. 139 ff.Google Scholar
24 Bray, , Solano López, p. 130 Google Scholar. For the Brazilian role, see Cardozo, Vísperas de la guerra del Paraguay, Ch. IV.
25 Soares, Teixeira, O drama da tríplice aliança (1865–1816) (Rio de Janeiro, 1956), pp. 141–151 Google Scholar; Beberina, , Guerra del Paraguay, I, 25–29.Google Scholar
26 Box, , The Origins of the Paraguayan War, p. 107 Google Scholar. José Maria da Silva Paranhos asserted: “Our intervention of 1864 in the Oriental State, ably exploited by the Blancos, caused López to suspect that we intended to wage a war of conquest. The repulse of his mediation irritated him, and the cordiality that then existed between the imperial government and the Argentine increased those unfounded suspicions. We know that the Oriental minister in Asunción, Sr. Vásquez Sagastume, sought to convince López that there was a secret treaty of alliance between Brazil and the Argentine Republic for the partition of Paraguay and of the Oriental State. It was under these impressions that the suspicious dictator began the war against Brazil.” Schneider, Louis, A guerra da triplice alliança (4 vols.; vols. 1 and 2, Rio de Janeiro, 1902 Google Scholar; vols. 3 and 4, Rio de Janeiro, 1924–1928), I, 89, n. 1.
27 El Semanario, February 13, 1864. There was a great flurry of diplomatic activity in May, 1864. Brazil’s special envoy, José Antonio Saraiva, arrived in Montevideo on May 6. Uruguay’s José Vásquez Sagastume had already sailed for Asunción and arrived on May 12, a day after Juan José Brizuela returned home to report on affairs in Montevideo (El Semanario, May 21, 1864).
28 Juan José Herrera to José Vásquez Sagastume, Monteviedo, May 1, 1864, in Báez, , Historia diplomática del Paraguay, 2, 123–124 Google Scholar. Also see de Herrera, Luis Alberto, La diplomacia oriental en el Paraguay. Correspondencia oficial y privada del Doctor Juan José de Herrera… (6 vols.; Monteviedo, 1908–1926), III, 348–357.Google Scholar
29 El Semanario, May 21, 1864.
30 Ibid., May 28 and June 11, 1864.
31 Schneider, , A guerra da triplice alliança, 1, 37–40.Google Scholar
32 Box, , The Origins of the Paraguayan War, pp. 174–175 Google Scholar; Schneider, , A guerra da triplice alliança, 1, 100–101 and Appendix, pp. 73–74Google Scholar
33 El Semanario, July 9 and 16, 1864.
34 Ibid., July 30, 1864.
35 Carreras to Berges, Asunción, August 1, 1864, in Báez, , Historia diplomática del Paraguay, 2, 136–143.Google Scholar
36 Schneider, , A guerra da triplice alliança, 1, 40 Google Scholar; Box, The Origins of the Paraguayan War, Ch. 5. The ultimatum is reproduced in Schneider, op. cit., I, Appendix, pp. 24–30.
37 Berges to Egusquiza, Asunción, August 6, 1864, in Báez, , Historia diplomática del Paraguay, 2, 143–145.Google Scholar
38 El Semanario, August 13, 1864.
39 Ibid., August 27, 1864; Schneider, , A guerra da triplice alliança, 1, 89, n. 1.Google Scholar
40 Berges to César Sauvan Vianna de Lima, Asunción, August 30, 1864, in El Semanario, September 3, 1864; Beverina, , Guerra del Paraguay, 1, 391 Google Scholar; Báez, , Historia diplomática del Paraguay, 2, 147 Google Scholar; Schneider, , A guerra da triplice alliança, 1, Appendix, pp. 75–78.Google Scholar
41 El Semanario, September 3, 1864.
42 de Lima, Vianna to Berges, Asunción, September 1, 1864, in El Semanario, September 10, 1864.Google Scholar
43 Berges to de Lima, Vianna, Asunción, September 3, 1864, in El Semanario, September 10, 1864 Google Scholar; Schneider, , A guerra da triplice alliança, 1, Appendix, p. 79.Google Scholar
44 El Semanario, September 10, 1864.
45 Ibid., September 17, 1864.
46 Ibid., September 24, 1864.
47 Berges to de Lima, Vianna, Asunción, November 12, 1864, in El Semanario, November 19, 1864 Google Scholar; Beverina, , Guerra del Paraguay, 1, 100.Google Scholar
48 El Semanario, March 11, 1865.
49 Ibid., October 27, 1866.
50 Ibid., March 5, 1864.
51 Ibid., April 9, 1864.
52 Box expressed the view that the “ general mobilization “ was against Argentina, not Brazil (The Origins of the Paraguayan War, p. 210). His authority is a statement by Silva Paranhos: “We are convinced, and this is deduced from documents in the López archive, that the dictator was not arming to wage war on Brazil. The project that he was promoting was to extend his dominions to the South, conquering Corrientes; perhaps by this means he would win military fame and influence in questions of the Río de la Plata.” ( Schneider, , A guerra da triplice alliança, 1, 89, n. 1).Google Scholar
53 Thompson, George, The War in Paraguay (London, 1869), p. 16.Google Scholar
54 Ibid., p. 39.
55 March 5, 1864.
56 September 10, 1864.
57 Thompson, , The War in Paraguay, p. v.Google Scholar
58 Box, , The Origins of the Paraguayan War, pp. 224–233.Google Scholar
59 December 24, 1864.
60 Cardozo, , Paraguay independiente, pp. 227–229 Google Scholar; Báez, Cecilio, Le Paraguay, son évolution historique et sa situation actuelle (Paris, 1927), p. 62.Google Scholar
61 Stevens to Hamilton Fish, Montevideo, September 8, 1870, DDPU.
62 Cabichui had 95 issues from May 13, 1867 to August 20, 1868, and was published at Paso Pucu and San Fernando. I have used a microfilm made by L. Robert Hughes. The original is in the Biblioteca Enrique Solano López, Archivo Nacional, Asunción. Pedro II, Bartolomé Mitre, and Venancio Flores are identified by Cabichui as three forms of the devil, and their identifying epithets have passed into Paraguayan folklore ( de Carvalho Neto, Paulo, “Folclore da Guerra do Paraguai,” Journal of Inter-American Studies, 3 (April, 1961), 273–280).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cabichui invariably applied its choicest epithets to Pedro II and other Brazilian leaders. Pedro II was “ Su Magestad macacuna,” or “ el monarca de los rabilargos,” or “el Mono-arca.” (See Cabichui, June 17, 1867). Caxias is always portrayed as an extremely ugly, thick-lipped, corpulent Negro and referred to as “Baron Cajón.” (Ibid., July 11, 1867).
63 Cabichui, September 5, 1867.
64 See Pereyra, Carlos, Francisco Solano López y la guerra del Paraguay (Buenos Aires: Ediciones San Marcos, 1945), pp. 21–23.Google Scholar
65 Box, , The Origins of the Paraguayan War, pp. 241–250.Google Scholar
66 Hutchinson, Thomas J., The Parana; with Incidents of the Paraguayan War, and South American Recollections, from 1861 to 1868 (London, 1868), p. 311.Google Scholar Hutchinson was British consul in Rosario.
67 El Semanario, December 31, 1864.
68 Ibid., February 3, 1866; Talavera, Natalicio, La guerra del Paraguay. Correspondencias publicadas en el Semanario (Buenos Aires, 1958), p. 24.Google Scholar
69 Cabichui, September 5, 1867. Talavera probably wrote this—at least, the style is his. Talavera died in October, 1867.
70 Cabichui, January 30, 1868.
71 Stevens arrived in Montevideo on July 1, 1870, and left his post on May 19, 1873.
72 Stevens to Fish, Montevideo, February 12, 1872, DDPU.
73 Id. to id., Montevideo, February 19, 1872, ibid.
74 Id. to id., Montevideo, June 5, 1872, ibid.
75 Bray, , Solano López, p. 71.Google Scholar
76 El Semanario, December 24, 1864; Francisco Ysidoro Resquín, “ Breves relaciones históricas de la guerra contra el gobierno de la República del Paraguay … ,” MS. in Archivo Nacional, Asunción, Sección Histórica, vol. 356. Resquín fought through the war, managed to survive both López and the enemy, and wrote his version of the war in 1875.
77 Quell, Sánchez, Política internacional del Paraguay, pp. 236–237.Google Scholar
78 Bray, , Solano López, p. 168.Google Scholar
79 Quell, Sánchez, Política internacional del Paraguay, p. 199.Google Scholar
80 Carreras to Berges, August 1, 1864, in Báez, , Historia diplomática del Paraguay, 2, 139.Google Scholar A recent interpretation by a Spaniard sees the war as a diabolical plot by Brazil and Argentina with the United States hovering near like a vulture waiting to take advantage of these “ fratricidal Hispanic rivalries.” ( Caballero, Ernesto Giménez, Revelación del Paraguay, [Madrid, 1958], pp. 96–97).Google Scholar
81 There were other papers and reviewsi such as El Eco del Paraguay, edited by Ildefonso Bermejo from 1855 to 1857 ( Bray, Arturo, Hombres y épocas del Paraguay, Libro primero, 3d ed. [Buenos Aires, 1957], pp. 47–48).Google Scholar
82 In Artide VIII the Allies pledged themselves “ to respect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Paraguay.” Then in Article XVI, Brazil and Argentina are given all the territory in dispute, plus the Chaco Boreal to which Argentina had no good claim.
83 Thompson, the English military engineer, said that publication of the treaty gave him “a further zest to fight for Paraguay, as I believed, from the terms of the Protocol, that she must either fight or be absorbed” (The War in Paraguay, p. vi). Box viewed the severe terms as a measure of fear inspired by López and not the result of a previous agreement to partition Paraguay.
81 May 23, 1867.
85 August 8, 1867.
86 Cabichui, November 23, 1867.
87 Stevens to Fish, Montevideo, September 2, 1872, DDPU.
88 Thus Arturo Bray wrote that Argentina had not given up the idea of incorporating the lost province (Hombres y épocas del Paraguay, Libro primero, p. 49).
89 See Box, , The Origins of the Paraguayan War, pp. 23–26.Google Scholar The Porteños, Arturo Bray writes, inherited from Rosas their policy of being a bad neighbor (Solano López, p. 69). Rosas, many writers believed, had plans to reconstitute the old viceroyalty. On this point see Beverina, , Guerra del Paraguay, 1, 23 Google Scholar; Silva Paranhos’s note in Schneider, , A guerra da triplice alliança, 1, 17,Google Scholar and Cardozo, , Vísperas de la guerra del Paraguay, pp. 85–88.Google Scholar
90 El Semanario, October 17, 1863.
91 Carreras to Berges, Asunción, August 1, 1864, in Báez, , Historia diplomática del Paraguay, 2, 136–137.Google Scholar
92 Beverina frankly admits the Argentine desire to reconstitute the old viceroyalty (Guerra del Paraguay, I, 14, 22).
93 Thornton, to Russell, , Buenos Aires, April 24, 1865, in Correspondence Respecting Hostilities in the River Plate, Part III, no. 19,Google Scholar cited in Box, , The Origins of the Paraguayan War, pp. 270–271.Google Scholar
