This brief study of the Venezuelan missions of Baptis Irvine arid Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry suggests several new interpretations. United States historians of early inter-American relations have usually noticed the abortive errands of the Baltimore journalist (1818) and the War of 1812 hero (1819) only as routine incidents in evolving American policy toward the Spanish American wars for independence. To the Venezuelan historian, José Rafael Fortique, however, the missions assume wider and subtler meaning. They helped to shape the outlook of a nation in the making and to mold the legal thought of its leader, Simón Bolívar.
The author sandwiches his analyses of the two missions between an introductory commentary on Venezuelan privateering and his own translation of Perry’s journal describing a riverine journey to Angostura. The privateers, argues Fortique, amply fulfilled the duties assigned them by Bolívar and, to a considerable degree, were responsible for his improved military fortunes after 1817. When they captured two American vessels, John Quincy Adams selected Irvine to seek redress from the Venezuelan government—an appointment the secretary later regretted. One of very few North Americans ever to confer with Bolívar, Irvine summarily appraised him as “a Don Quixote with ambition, but without military talents.” To Fortique, the agent’s conduct was aggressive and inflexible. Stimulated by this obstinacy, the Liberator composed a lengthy series of letters in which he articulated his views on neutral rights and other aspects of international law. (On this exchange, see Lewis Hanke, HAHR [August, 1936, 360-373 and May 1941, 258-291].)
Perry’s mission, in the author’s view, erred in another direction. The appearance before Angostura—300 miles up the Orinoco—of a Yankee man-of-war, bearing a renowned naval officer of high rank, compelled Venezuelan officials to negotiate under the threat of force. The incident violated the nation’s sovereignty and, in Bolívar’s absence, exposed the weakness of its diplomacy. Fortique views the diary of this mission—recorded by a young naval chaplain, John N. Hambleton—as singularly offensive to Venezuela. He finds the chronicler guilty of exaggerated and contemptuous criticisms and a lack of appreciation for Venezuela’s heroic strugggles. Moreover, he sheds little light on the commodore’s negotiations.
The volume is the author’s contribution to the National Academy of History on the occasion of his induction as a corresponding member. The text lacks footnote citations, and the meager bibliography omits some of the sources that he used and others that he might have used.
