Arequito Revolt - Historical Review

Historical Review

The Arequito Revolt was reported by early historians in a bad light. The chronicles by Lamadrid and Paz, labeled it as treason to the motherland or as an obscure event organized to place Bustos in the Córdoba government house and nothing more. Historians in the second half of the 19th century, starting with Bartolomé Mitre and Vicente Fidel López accused him of both. Nobody dared to defend Bustos and his followers, and as the defeat of the federalist party in the civil wars carried forward their enemies, this point of view was the one which survived.

Many years later, the school of Argentina historical revisionism started to see the Arequito Revolt with different eyes. Also, Córdoba historians valued their first autonomous governors, who had supported or participated in the events. At mid-20th century, with the historical revisionism firmly established, and with the apogee of the historical overvaluation of San Martín (who also had refused to participate in the civil war), the Arequito Revolt was seen as an important step in the formation of modern Argentina.

In effect, the rebellion of the Army of the North permitted the provinces to impose their will for the first time over the central government in Buenos Aires, made the strange and almost monarchist unitarian party constitution of 1819 disappear, permitted the birth of the autonomous government in Buenos Aires Province, equalized the rights of the people, and opened the way for an equal treatment and relations between the provinces (path that will prove to be difficult, as it would still need 50 more years of civil wars in Argentina).

Possibly, if the Army of the North would have followed its path to the north, the war between Buenos Aires and the federalists from the Litoral provinces would have lasted much longer, and the inevitable formation of a modern federalist Argentine nation would have been more difficult.

It is without doubt that the rebellion was an act of military disobedience, which, seen from a military point of view is totally inadmissible, but considering its political causes and results, it was a positive step towards a democracy with equal right for all.