[No Title]

Author(s): Ariel de la Fuente

Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 110, No. 3 (June 2005), pp. 934-935
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/ahr.110.3.934a
Accessed: 21-06-2016 16:59 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press, American Historical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Historical Review

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
934 Communications
would add disciplines and historical fields to the
specializations of historians. The Gutenberg-e project
is itself part of the solution, both because it draws
attention to dissertation research and because it pro-
vokes discussion on broader needs for generational
succession in history.
More generally, I think historians need a concerted
effort at all levels to link the growing range of histor-
ical studies to the inherited strength of specificity in
historical analysis.
PATRICK MANNING
Northeastern University
REVIEWS
TO THE EDITOR:
In his review of my book Wandering Paysanos (AHR ,
December 2004), Ariel de la Fuente offers an assess-
ment that I consider misleading. To begin with, my
book does not claim that Rosas established and sup-
ported “the rule of law.” I am aware that a dictatorial
regime, however popular, does not qualify for uphold-
ing the rule of law in the juridical-constitutional sense.
My book presents the “law” as an important dimension
of Federalist ideology and shows how state function-
aries tried to disseminate the idea that in a republic,
the law is the main regulator of social interactions. In
spite of the regression of elite political and civil rights,
peasants and peons experienced some progress in
terms of greater equality before the law and increased
accessibility to the justice system. As state authorities
became more systematic about enforcing existing de-
crees and circulars, the subaltern classes learned to
respect these “laws.” Folks in rural towns who pro-
vided evidence to help solve a murder case present a
good example of this interaction. Of course, there were
others who defied the authority of judges and people
who asserted older notions of “justice” based on
“privilege” and paternalism. De la Fuente picked up
one of these cases (a peon who claimed to have been
pardoned by Rosas’s daughter) to reject my whole
argument.
De la Fuente also dismisses my proposition about
the predictability of Rosas’s penal policies, presenting
Rosas’s confiscation of unitario properties as a coun-
terexample. This is a misleading criticism, for my
argument relates only to penal policies concerning
common delinquents. Rosas’s penal policies were
“predictable”—not proportional, adequate, or just, but
merely predictable. He gave similar sentences for
various types of felonies (desertion, theft, murder) and
was systematic about their implementation. With re-
gard to political crimes, Rosas was also inflexible.
When confronted with an infrequent political crime
(the Southern Rebellion of 1839), he responded with a
severe and unusual punishment.
My argument about deserters’ views of the “father-
AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW
This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
land” is also misconstrued in this review. My argument
relates to republican values, as understood by the
subalterns, not to notions of territorial patriotism.
Deserters complained about the unfair punishments
and the privations imposed by the army as unfitting for
free men and citizens. Their “reasons” articulated a
form of republican discourse about rights. They felt
themselves to be members of a new imagined commu-
nity—the “Federation,” a land with shifting borders.
To dismiss my argument by stating that two of the
voices were not really “Argentine” reveals little under-
standing of the nature of the argument.
De la Fuente is not persuaded by my suggestion
about the effacement of the Independence Epic in
popular memory. My evidence tells me that soldiers
who showed a remarkable memory of civil war events
were unable to remember the great battles and gener-
als of the Independence period. Rosista official rhet-
oric and representations only deepened this ongoing
process of “forgetting.” De la Fuente wonders whether
the filiaciones are good sources for assessing the
collective memory about past wars. My answer is yes.
These documents provide multiple fragments of evi-
dence that point in this direction.
The reviewer states that I never discuss the meth-
odological problems associated with voices and stories
recuperated in the context of an interrogation. This is
simply not true. In different parts of the book, I discuss
how the state used these interrogations to classify and
control the population; how the voices of subalterns
were “prefaced” by ritualized legal discourse; and how
they strategically used an apparent conformity to be
able to articulate protests about the system of recruit-
ment and about particular authorities. And here is the
novelty of my work: the subaltern was able to and did
speak to power, sometimes with a defiant voice.
Historians of oral cultures have found that acts of
remembering and telling stories are assisted by the use
of “signposts,” dramatic moments or crucial historical
events around which the narrative is organized. After
reading more than five hundred stories told by ex-
soldiers, I am convinced that (a) most of them were
quite aware of the Federalist great moments or gestas,
and (b) they ordered their stories (and hence their
memory) in relation to these signposts. For some
reason, de la Fuente found this argument unconvinc-
ing.
RICARDO D. SALVATORE
Universidad Torcuato Di Tella
Buenos Aires, Argentina
ARIEL DE LA FUENTE RESPONDS:
Ricardo Salvatore says that my review was “mislead-
ing” or that I “misconstrued” his argument, which I
cannot accept. Actually, I do think that part of his
work makes a contribution to the field (which he does
not mention in his letter). In other instances, as he
himself accepts, I was simply “not persuaded” by
JUNE 2005
 Communications 935

certain aspects of his argument or simply “found it
unconvincing.” I also understand that in some cases his
work is just wrong, as I made clear in the review.
Authors should know that readers do not read their
works exactly and exclusively as they wish.
ARIEL DE LA FUENTE
Purdue University
ERRATA
The illustration on p. 1422 of the December 2004 issue
was mistakenly accompanied by the wrong caption.
The caption should have read “Transporting cotton to
market, India, 1870. Reproduced with kind permission
of Volkart Stiftung, Winterthur, Switzerland.” The
editors regret the error.
The illustration on p. 378 of the April 2005 issue
should have appeared on p. 364, above the caption for
Figure 1. The illustration that should have been ac-
companied by the caption for Figure 2 was inadver-
tently omitted. The illustration on p. 364 was included
in error. Its correct caption would have read “The
signature of one of Cuzco’s earliest known indigenous
scribes, Pedro Quispe (see right side of photo), with a
flourish next to it and the word escrivano, ‘notary,’
underneath. ARC/PN, Pedro de la Carrera Ron, pro-
tocolo 4 (1586–1596). Reproduction with kind permis-
sion of the Archivo Regional de Cusco.” The editors
regret the errors.

AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW JUNE 2005

This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:59:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms