Good Report On Republicanism Versus The Caudillo Rule Under Rosa

In most cases, the spirit of the modern republicanism in the post-independence generation always conflicts with the harsh policies of the caudillo rule. Therefore, the failure of the past to relate well with the present triggers a lot of mixed reactions from the citizenry leading to the confrontations and the conflicts. The caudillo rule advocated the dictatorship where the leaders ruled by the rod and force. The citizens had no power to question the leaders because there were serious consequences for such actions. The rise of the modern republicanism eroded the leaders the dictatorship powers thereby creating the wrangles.
Thesis statement: an analysis of both the modern republicanism and the caudillo rule painted a clear picture of the world’s evolvement.
Dictatorship comes with discrimination elements, which the South Americans well portrayed. The rest of the Americans considered the South Americans as illiterate people who were uncivilized. During the caudillo rule, the men regarded women as inferior persons who help a low status in the society. As a result, the women engaged in domestic chores and their place was homes and the farms. Additionally the law did not entitle criminals to the justice system due to the isolation practiced in that era (Hanke & Rausch, 2006). However, the modern republicanism gives room for the criminals to present their case before the judges. The modern law outlines that one is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the modern republicanism approved the justice for all because everyone has the right to a fair hearing.
The citizens openly practiced homicide without fear. However, the masterminds, for instance, Don Juan never availed protection to the criminals who committed the act. In the modern republicanism, both the criminals and the masterminds face the same laws and justice passed fairly without considering the rich and poor or the social class one holds in the society. The gaucho would always possess a knife as a protection nature, and the government allowed it. However, in the modern republicanism, the leaders considered carrying of weapons illegal. For this reason, if one was found having the knife or any other weapons, one had to face serious consequences. For instance, the government could introduce a jail term and fines to deter the criminals and the potential criminals from carrying weapons.
Rosa also portrayed his dictatorship styles because he would decline serving the people if the government happened to scrap off the powers from him (Hanke & Rausch, 2006). He also passed the perception to the citizens that only one person could deliver to the people if only they bestow all the powers upon him. As a result, the citizens had no right and would engage in every activity that Rosa proposed. He denied the people the room for democracy because he embraced the one party nation. Therefore, any opposing party had no room to challenge Rosa’s governance because he terrified and treated such people with a lot of cruelty. However, the modern republicanism advocated multi-party democracy, and it gave room for opposition where the leaders would challenge the government. Allowing people to join different parties enhanced good governance, and it also kept a check on the government.
In the caudillo era, the leaders would easily die in the fight where they would resist any rule from the others. For instance, the Mexican soldiers killed Maximilian because he tried to change the leadership style in the nation. He fought for the civilization and modernization of people (Sanders, 2014). As a result, the Republicans lost hope because the soldiers had shot and set on fire their leader. During the caudillo era, the government regarded the soldier’s action as a normal one because the soldiers went unpunished. On the other hand, the modern republicanism condemns murder, and the law convicts anyone who kills. For this reason, the Constitution outlines the rights of all people and their freedom to enjoy the right to life. Therefore, the Constitution had given the state the responsibility to protect its citizens but not carrying the extra-judicial killings.
Garibaldi also fought for equality for all since he advocated the modern republicanism. He advocated the Americans transformation from the old regime to a new one that recognized the people’s feelings, and a democratic one. On the other hand, Rio Grande fought against equality among all the Blacks. He considered the Blacks as illiterate people who had no place in the White’s society. Grande opposed the liberation of the Blacks, who had received their freedom due to republicanism (Sanders, 2014). The situations depict the mismatching nature between the Republicans and the caudillos. Therefore, there was no single time that the rules would have a common ground on handling issues. Isn’t inhuman to discriminate people on the race basis? The republicanism spirit needed to prevail over the caudillo rules to help fight the racism vice.
Nonetheless, the foreigners and the slaves advocated republicanism due to the oppression of the caudillo rules. As a result, they would boo the leaders who practiced dictatorship and discrimination against the people. The Uruguay soldiers possessed the republicanism spirit, which enabled them fight as one people thereby strengthening the movement. They also spread the education on the importance of freedom and republicanisms. It helped the public recognize the need to embrace the republicanism because it would benefit them.
In assumption, the republicanism spirit would never reconcile with the caudillo rules due to their differences. One rule advocated democracy while the other one practiced dictatorship. Therefore, there was no way to reconcile both parties, and it resulted in the differences that later led to the conflicts.

References

Hanke, L., & Rausch, J. M. (2006). People and issues in Latin American history: Sources and
interpretations. Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers.
Sanders, J. E. (2014). The vanguard of the Atlantic world: Creating modernity, nation, and
democracy in nineteenth-century Latin America.