Simon Bolivar's Character Analysis

One of the challenges that emerged for Simon Bolivar on his way to leadership was the fact that liberalism lacked the majority support in colonial Latin America. Bolivar, like other revolutionaries, such as Francisco Miranda, struggled to get the support of most Venezuelans because of the stigma the term “liberal” had in colonial Venezuela. Being a liberal was associated with having French ideals, which naturally defied the Spanish rule. John Charles Chasteen actually states this when describing Francisco Miranda’s failed attempt to invade Venezuela. In his book, Americanos: Latin America’s Struggle for Independence, he states “the outcome of Miranda’s 1806 expedition shows that ‘French ideas’ alone could not create movements for independence …show more content…
After the fall of the first republic, Bolivar had to take extreme actions against europeos in order to “prevent Spain from using Venezuela as a platform for reconquering New Granada” (100). Bolivar threatened “immediate execution of all europeos who bore arms in the service of Fernando VII”. Additionally, Bolivar’s proclamation of War to the Death “promised to never execute americanos, even if they fought against the republic” (101). This demonstrates that after the failure that was the first republic, Bolivar felt that Miranda’s ideals were the problem with the republic. Bolivar now wanted to take a more radical approach-- to execute all europeos that served Fernando VII. This also demonstrates the extent in which he was willing to go for the sovereignty of Venezuela. The fact that he only wanted to execute europeos and not americanos only shows how he now wanted to take a different approach and reframe the way the matter was being executed. The conversation needed to be reframed as “americanos versus europeos” if Venezuela wanted to get rid of Spanish colonialism. Naturally, this was a challenge for Venezuela because independence movements are not usually smooth and tranquil processes. They often times require bloodshed in order to achieve that state of sovereignty. In the case of Venezuela, there was not only a civil war …show more content…
As time progressed, Bolivar started to encounter disagreements with Vice President Santander and an old Venezuelan ally, Jose Antonio Paez. On one hand, Bolivar had the risky idea of creating an Andean Federation that would unite everything from “Mexico to Chile and Argentina (165). In addition, “to being president of Colombia (which included Venezuela and Ecuador at this point), Bolivar had also been named dictator of Peru by the country’s new national assembly, and his ever-loyal Sucre was now president of Bolivia” (165). All of this demonstrates how Bolivar’s ambitious ideas were not only risky, but also were undemocratic. Bolivar was all for social and racial equality for all americanos, but his presidency gave little role to americanos, featuring, a “lifetime presidency, with each president to name his successor, and a lifetime, hereditary vice presidency” (164-5). Ultimately demonstrating how independence not always brought stability and fairness to all individuals as it promised. Moreover, Bolivar also struggled to keep Santander and Paez happy with his plans. Santander, did not agree with Bolivar’s ideas of forming an Andean Federation and even rejected Bolivar’s constitution. Additionally, he had also “gained the upper hand politically” during Bolivar’s absence (168). Paez, on the other hand, wanted Venezuela