False Economy - Alan Beattie [5]
The idea that an American identity sprang fully formed from the adoption of the Constitution is a comforting thought for a country that sees itself as the embodiment of great and universal principles. It is, however, something of a myth. Battles had to be fought to make flesh the national motto E pluribus unum ("Out of many, one"). That motto appears today on U.S. coins, but at the time of independence, in 1789, dozens of different currencies were circulating—the "continentals" printed by the Continental Congress, the governing body of the independence movement (and the forgeries of same issued by the British to destabilize the war effort), as well as various currencies issued by states, cities, and foreign nations. A national bank and a single "national debt"—making the federal government responsible for the debt of the states—were not created without fierce opposition. Some of the most prominent of the new republic's founding fathers, particularly Thomas Jefferson, believed too much power was being pulled into the center.
In Argentina, it took decades of struggle between centralists, who wanted all tax to pass through the hands of the national government, and federalists, who wanted it reserved for the provinces. A constitution was adopted in 1853 with a system of sharing tax revenue between the center and the provinces. But there remained continual tensions, which were not settled until the suppression of an armed uprising in the province of Buenos Aires in 1880, at a cost of 2,500 dead and wounded, which focused more power in the center. Domingo Sarmiento, who had tried to forge an Argentine national unity while president between 1868 and 1874, said he would settle for an Argentina whose inhabitants were not killing each other. Instead of the French Revolution's rallying cry of "Liberty, equality, fraternity," he said, he would settle for "Peace, tranquillity, and liberty."
On the face of it, the economies of the two countries also looked similar: agrarian nations pushing the frontiers of their settlement westward into a wilderness of temperate grasslands. In both nations the frontier rancher—the gaucho and the cowboy—was elevated into a national symbol of courage, independence, and endurance. But closer up, there were big disparities in the way the frontiers were settled. America chose a path that parceled out new land to individuals and families; Argentina delivered it into the hands of a small elite.
From the founding of the colonies, America was fortunate enough to have imported many of the practices of northern European farming and the aspirations of its people. The farmers of "New England," the densely populated states of the Northeast, came largely from Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands—all countries with a lot of people and not much land. They brought with them the tradition of skilled farmers on small homesteads. Argentina, by contrast, had a history of a few rich landowners on great estates left by the Spanish, and the aristocratic elitism that came with it. It also had a labor shortage. Mass immigration to Argentina came later in the nineteenth century, but the country had to push forward its frontier with a skeleton staff.
Both countries expanded westward, the United States to the Pacific, and the Argentines to the Andes, but not in the same way. They faced similar problems. The vast distances and unfamiliar terrain were weapons of great value for the Native Americans in both halves of the continent. The westward expansion could not be blocked indefinitely, given the gulf in technologies. Rifles and revolvers would in time defeat axes and bows and arrows. But the resistance they encountered helped to shape the settlement.
America favored squatters; Argentina backed landlords. Desperate to push inland, and short of cash, Buenos Aires found the best way to encourage settlers was to sell in advance large plots