Although Carlos Pellegrini held the presidency for only a third of the normal six-year term, the crisis which he faced between 1890 and 1892 makes this short period one of the most critical in Argentine history. The revolution of 1890 against the oligarchy was suppressed, but it resulted in the resignation of Miguel Juárez Celman as chief executive. Pellegrini, the vice-president, succeeded to the nation’s highest office in the midst of unresolved economic and political problems. Caught between the pressures for change from the disenfranchised and the desire of the ruling class to maintain the status quo, the new government achieved its immediate goal of pacification, allowing the continued material development of the nation.
This brief study relates only to Pellegrini’s presidential term. The situation seemed to demand a statesman of unique ability and historic vision. The new leader set out to restore popular confidence by calling a conference of distinguished legislators, who presented the options available to him. Then, exerting strong determination, he resolved complex financial difficulties with the establishment of a national bank. The basic issue, however, remained the political turmoil growing out of the revolution. Pellegrini is pictured as a convinced democrat and advocate of free suffrage who was forced to put aside his convictions and adopt authoritarianism and a “política de orden,” so that he might save his country from chaos.
The greatest intrinsic value of this work is historiographical. Miguel Ángel Cárcano, one of the most distinguished authors and diplomats of twentieth-century Latin America, has represented the viewpoint of his generation since the publication in 1917 of his prizewinning study, “Evolución histórica del régimen de la tierra pública.” Cárcano deplores the antidemocratic characteristics of the ruling elite, but admires their “pragmatic and realistic” approach to politics, their sensitivity to the needs of Argentina at this time, and their Victorian belief in progress. Pellegrini, with ideas more advanced than those of his contemporaries, could only govern “under pressure of forces he could not control” (p. 112). If he did all that he could under the circumstances, this may be a compelling reason for Argentines of today to find a renewed interest in him.
