Leoncio Gianello’s book on the Congress of Tucumán, which issued the declaration of Argentine independence, was first published by the Academia Nacional de la Historia in the sesquicentennial celebrations of that event. It has now been reissued in a commercial edition, and it clearly deserves the wider circulation obtained thereby. To be sure, it is not a work that one would sit down and read straight through for either enjoyment or intellectual stimulation. Yet it will probably long remain a standard reference on the Congress of Tucumán, or more precisely (as Gianello points out) the National Congress of 1816-1820, since in 1817 it transferred its sessions to Buenos Aires.
In general the author’s approach is one of detailed narration rather than analysis and interpretation. He covers the antecedents, composition, and installation of the Congress; the declaration of independence and the selection of Juan Martín de Pueyrredón as Supreme Director; the work of the Congress as a constituent assembly and as legislative body; and its involvement in military preparations, diplomacy, and political factionalism. Naturally all highlights of the period are treated, either in direct connection with the work of the Congress or as essential background. Gianello solves the problem of overall organization with some distinction, by means of topical chapters arranged roughly according to the order in which their respective themes first engaged the deputies’ concerted attention. Within chapters the arrangement of material is for the most part chronological. Unfortunately, while a certain amount of repetition between chapters in unavoidable and even justifiable, there is also some within chapters, and the style is rather pedestrian. Nor does the author consistently display a sense of what is and is not important, for he has included a scattering of trivia and too many long summaries of assorted manifestos. The documentary appendix is useful, but the name and subject indices, helpful as far as they go, are not really adequate for purposes of scholarly reference.
As a Santafecino whose reputation rests chiefly on the writing of competent local history, Gianello cannot be neatly assigned either to the traditional school of Porteño liberal historiography or to any of the current “revisionist” schools. Despite the emphasis on facts as against interpretation, however, he makes clear his admiration for the Congress and its members. He notes the invidious comparisons that have been made between the deputies of Tucumán and their predecessors in the Assembly of the Year XIII, and he resolutely (though not very systematically) defends both the intellectual and moral caliber and the political capacity of the former. He regards their initial monarchist fervor as sincere and perfectly natural under the circumstances. By 1819, he feels, the complicity of the Congress in the monarchist intrigues of the Directory as a diplomatic maneuver was based on no deep conviction and for that very reason scarcely warranted the storm of opprobrium that was about to break out. Gianello also recognizes in those latter-day negotiations la honda huella del desgaste that was taking its toll of the deputies. But he does not therefore alter his generally favorable assessment, and in much the same fashion his own work, despite the shortcomings noted, remains a valid expression of tribute to its subject.
