Bolivar acknowledged her warning and heeded it. In a letter to Francisco Paula de Santander, Vice President of Gran Colombia, her wrote: “my sister tells me that there are three parties in Caracas, monarchists, democrats and pardocrats, that I must be the Liberator or die is her advice. This is the advice to follow even if I knew that, in doing so, all of humankind would perish”.26 Bolívar was interested in María antonia’s opinions, trusted them, and paid heed to her advice. He did not hesitate to quote her to his political confreres.

Simón and María Antonia Bolívar, both during and after the war for independence, had an egalitarian and an interdependent filial relationship. In the aftermath of Venezuelan independence and the absence of Bolívar as he led the independence armies in Ecuador and Peru, María Antonia kept him informed of political events, she gauged the mood of the country, and she reported what she saw and heard.  She was his most trusted source and he asked her for political news as his letter of July 1825 indicated. He wrote: “Always send me news about politics and everything else, because what you tell me is most accurate.”27

Legal System in Chaos
Her letters not only contained news of political events but also dealt with various lawsuits and the convoluted Venezuelan legal system. She had four lawsuits pending that involved property and money: one was Bolívar’s claim to the Aroa mines that was contested by señores Lazo and Estévez who embargoed a portion of the proceeds from the copper mines until the suit was decided. The second major litigation involved the Aristeguieta entail inherited by Bolívar upon the death of his brother Juan Vicente. José Lecumberri, a descendant of Bolívar’s aunt and a member of the Aristeguieta family, challenged the claim. In 1824, the Supreme Court of Bogotá decided in favor of Bolívar as the rightful heir, but in 1829 he turned over the properties that he received from the dissolution of the entail in 1827 to his nephew Anacleto. The other lawsuits involved haciendas that tenants had either abandoned or owed rent on and a house where the tenant had not paid rent for years.28

According to María Antonia, the laws were unsound and cumbersome because both authoritarian Spanish and liberal Colombian Codes were used simultaneously. Litigation was time consuming and confusing, and the average citizen was unable to understand the laws. In her opinion, the judges were thieves, and Venezuela was ungovernable without legal reforms.29 Frustrated and impatient with the legal system, she wanted Bolívar to use his political clout to settle the lawsuits, but he refused, saying that he wanted no more rights than the ordinary citizen.30 She suggested that Bolívar have Congress appoint a commission to draft new laws to present to the legislature.31 He attempted to institute some changes when he returned to Gran Colombia in 1827, but these had little effect on the legal system.

Slavery
María Antonia was a slave owner and feared the loss of her labor force with the war’s end. Slaves entered Venezuela from the Caribbean Islands during the colonial period where their labor supported the plantation economy and urban households. Located mainly in the coastal regions, they made up sixty per cent of the population.32 The republicans needed their support to win the war for independence and along with the llaneros they ensured victory for the patriot side. As a member of the social elite and a former slave owner, Bolívar proposed emancipation of slaves at the Congress of Angostura in 1819 in an effort to recruit them for his army and to keep his promise to President Alexandre Pétion of Haiti. At the Congress of Cúcuta in 1821, in an attempt to mollify property owners, he modified his stance on full emancipation by proposing that the sons of slaves be freed.33 María Antonia feared the results of this limited emancipation as it would lead to the ruin of the country and benefit neither race. She attributed the troubles in Caracas, in part, to the presence of former slaves.34 As a member of the white property owning elite, she felt threatened by the liberty and social mobility of emancipated slaves. Once freed, slaves abandoned the haciendas, leaving owners without an adequate labor force to harvest crops and turn a profit, as was the case at Bolívar’s estate at Tuy. Over and over again in her letters to her brother, María Antonia referred to the collapse of the plantation economy and the scarcity of labor.35 She also feared slave insurrections, like those that occurred in Venezuela in the eighteenth century and later in Haiti. While she praised the Bolivian Constitution of 1826, she urged Bolívar to reconsider the provision for the emancipation of slaves (Boletín de la academia de historia 1933).

Venezuela in Need
María Antonia repeatedly asked Bolívar to return to Venezuela, as she and her fellow citizens believed that he was the only one able to restore order to the republic. She wrote: “Come although it may be for a short while, but bring along 1000 white soldiers because the troops here are very corrupt.”36 In addition, she advised him to consider “. . . political matters that are as vital as war.”37 But Bolívar was not able to return to Venezuela until 1827, three years after the victory at Ayacucho that liberated Peru.

During his absence, factions in Colombia and Venezuela sought to diminish his influence and power. Although president of Colombia, Bolívar was unable to contain the separatist movement led by Páez. After Páez took extraordinary measure to recruit troops for the militia, ostensibly to maintain order, the civil governor and Intendant, Escalona, ordered him to Bogotá to answer for his excessive use of force; however, his supporters in Valencia convened an assembly that proposed separation from the union.38 María Antonia informed Bolívar of the growing separatist movement and the threat posed by Páez. She urged him to return to Venezuela. “This country is lost. . . if you do not come soon and take energetic measures that can save it. Our enemies work ceaselessly to destroy us.”39 Moreover, the Spaniards were paying revolutionaries to begin a civil war.40 The Liberator was interested in and mindful of her opinions and advice. He returned to Caracas in 1827 and his presence had a calming effect, but only temporarily. By 1830, the separatist forces had gained ground and Venezuela declared its independence from Colombia.

In July 1829, María Antonia again wrote to Bolívar about the anarchic state of affairs in Venezuela and appealed to him to return. The military was deserting, the Congress was divided between monarchists and democrats, Páez was crazy, and civil disorder abounded. The clergy and the people begged for his return. In addition, there were threats against the Bolívar family. “Our family is always awaiting death, because some of the most adamant say the Bolívar family should be destroyed to the fifth generation.”41 In fact, the situation was so dire that María Antonia considered emigrating to the United States. Begging for alms in a foreign country or living with the Moors would be superior to remaining in Venezuela, she wrote.42

Although María Antonia‘s letters kept Bolívar informed of the political situation in Colombia, he advised her not to intervene in political matters as they were not the proper sphere for women. In a letter of 10 August 1826, he sternly warned her of the dangers of partisanship. He urged her to devote her energies to the care of her home and family and to leave politics to men. He wrote:

Hence, the involvement of women in politics was abhorrent to Bolívar and other national leaders who were products of a patriarchal society. Women assumed new responsibilities in extraordinary times, like the war for independence, but once the conflict was over they were to return to their proper spheres of influence as wives and mothers. No other role was suitable or acceptable for them.

Bolívar’s Properties
María Antonia, however, was not constrained by propriety and the social mores of the times as she took on non-traditional roles and responsibilities for Bolívar during the 1820s. Given the extent of the family fortune, he found it necessary to entrust her with the management and disposition of his estates and mines during his absence from Venezuela. The preservation and protection of family properties and interests were of supreme importance to elite families. The Bolívar’s wealth derived from two sources: the copper mines at Aroa that came to him through Francisco María de Narváez who, in turn, acquired them from the king, and houses in Caracas and haciendas in the valleys of Yare, Taguaza, and Macaira, along with a substantial number of slaves that he inherited from his godfather el canónigo Doctor Don Juan Félix Jérez de Aristeguieta.44 To expedite matters, he gave María Antonia power of attorney over the Aroa mines in 1824 and instructed her to rent them, pending his approval of the contract.45 Thus, Bolívar trusted her to carry out his wishes, but he had the final say in business matters. María Antonia promptly rented the mines to British entrepreneurs John D. Cochrane and Robert Lowry. Bolívar requested that she keep a strict accounting of the rental money, as some of it was to be retained for the litigation and the rest to be distributed to pensioners and friends.46

The rich mines of Aroa proved to be a long standing problem for Bolívar and María Antonia. The mines had been abandoned by Juan Bolívar in 1804 and had been taken over by two women, María de la Cruz Uruia and Francisca Sagazasu, who continued mining operations there throughout the war.47 Simón Bolívar’s attempt to reclaim them resulted in a lawsuit between the parties that dragged on in the courts for years. The lawsuit over the mines and the sale of the mines filled the siblings’ correspondence.

As early as 1825, Bolívar decided to sell the mines, and he authorized María Antonia to advertise the sale. He hoped that he could interest British investors in buying them. The selling price was 200,000 pounds sterling, the proceeds of which would be deposited in a London bank where they would have access to the money. Both he and María Antonia contemplated living abroad after he retired from public life, and they needed a nest egg to support themselves.48  A discovery of gold, which proved to be false, and silver at the mining site in 1825 increased their value and made their sale more urgent.49

Two years later, in 1828, with the lawsuit still pending, Bolívar asked María Antonia to pay 3,000 pesos to the families to end the litigation, then find a judge who would confirm him as the sole owner, and ready the mines for sale.50 He ordered her to send the deeds to London, to transfer the power of attorney to her son-in-law, Gabriel Camacho, and to cover drafts, all of which she failed to do. Frustrated by her delay, he transferred his power of attorney to Camacho.51 He berated María Antonia for ignoring his orders and for her unwillingness to complete the transactions. In February 1829, he again transferred his power of attorney, this time to Lino Clemente52 who was to handle the pending sales contract in London.53 Although María Antonia’s lack of diligence in this important matter did not create a major rift between them, he acknowledged that she had made mistakes in handling the sale of the mines. Furthermore, he asserted that women were normally not involved in business dealings. He wrote: “For this reason, I have transmitted my power of attorney to others who understand better than you do. Let them work and do not meddle in anything, especially in paperwork and for that I will remain grateful to you.”54 This is the last extant communication that Bolívar had with his sister over the mines. In 1832, two years after Bolívar’s death, the issue was settled; the mines were sold to a British firm by María Antonia, her sister Juana and Bolívar’s niece, all heirs of the Liberator’s estate.55

María Antonia was responsible for managing and collecting rents from Bolívar’s numerous plantations and houses as well as the Aroa mines. She requested power of attorney in these matters as she was unable to make decisions or carry out Bolívar’s orders without it. By 1825, she received the power of attorney, but she still relied on Bolívar for advice and directions concerning his properties.56 One of her first duties was to inventory each plantation to assess expenses and profits. María Antonia anticipated acquiring enemies with her new responsibilities and did so as her Uncle Feliciano refused to cooperate with her request to review the accounts of the Chirgua estate prior to her receiving the power of attorney. She reported that the haciendas at Tuy, Macaira, and Araguita were not producing enough to cover their costs, and by 1828 she considered selling the San Mateo plantation as well.57 The lack of draft animals, the loss of slave labor, and the fevers that decimated the remaining work force reduced productivity, created shortages, and reduced profits. Despite these adverse conditions, María Antonia pursued her own business interests and purchased a sugar mill at Marrero. She asked Bolívar for a loan of 5000 pesos to pay for the mill.58

Bolívar’s urban properties in La Guaira were in a state of disrepair and María Antonia took steps to have them repaired; however, she encountered the wrath of her sister Juana who had to find other quarters when Bolívar ordered that her house be vacated. Furthermore, Juana laid claim to the La Guaira property, although it legally belonged to Bolívar. Despite receiving 150 pesos a month from her brother, she was not content. María Antonia begged him to settle the matter (Boletín de la academia de la historia 1933).

Simón Bolívar entrusted María Antonia with the distribution of pensions and gifts from his estate to needy widows, relatives, and friends. She gave 40 pesos to his nurse Hipolita,59 150 pesos to the widow of Doctor Francisco Paúl,60 200 pesos, to the widow Valero, 300 pesos to the widow of Simón Carreño61 and monies to his impoverished cousins Luisa and Josefa Bolívar. She took charge of the education of their nephew, Fernando Bolívar that the Liberator funded.62  In turn, María Antonia requested monies from Bolívar for good causes that she supported. She asked him for 1000 pesos to repair the roof of the church of the Holy Trinity that had been damaged by the 1812 earthquake. She had pledged that amount if he survived the war, but in her current impoverished state she could not afford to fund her bequest.63

Although María Antonia did not share Bolívar’s political views during the wars for independence, once Venezuela was liberated she supported his military campaigns in Peru and his presidency of Gran Colombia. She believed that only he could save Venezuela and triumph over his enemies. When his portrait was finished, it was carried in a military procession through the streets of Caracas to the cathedral where a Te Deum was celebrated, and it hung in her home where visitors could see it (Boletín de la academia de la historia, 1933).

Final Years
Simón Bolívar died on December 17, 1830, near Santa Marta, Colombia. Prior to his death, he praised his sister as possessing “much talent”, so any rancor over the management of his affairs was forgotten. María Antonia, her sister Juana, and the three children of their late brother Juan Vicente--- Juan, Felicia, and Fernando—were named heirs in his will. María Antonia and Juana received two-thirds of his estate and his niece and nephews the remaining one third.64  After Bolívar’s death, María Antonia retired to her estate at Macarao, but scandals tarnished her name. In 1833, she was accused of forging a deed of gift from her late brother for 30,000 pesos in an attempt to defraud her sister Josefa. When María Antonia refused to pay the agent 250 pesos for the transaction, the fraud was discovered, but, in the end, the charges were dropped. In 1836, she became enamored of a young creole to whom she gave 8,000 pesos. They quarreled, and she accused him of robbing her. He was sent to jail, but when their letters became public he was acquitted and their affair became common knowledge.65 María Antonia’s last deed for her brother was to arrange the return of his remains to the Chapel of the Holy Trinity in Caracas as per his will, but she died on October 7, 1842, before this was accomplished.66

Conclusion
María Antonia Bolívar was a member of the social elite in colonial Venezuela.67 She was an educated, intelligent, and literate woman, but her role in society as wife and mother was defined by law, tradition, and social mores. Before the war for independence began, she led a sheltered life, fulfilling her destiny as wife and mother, but once hostilities began, her life was radically changed by war, exile and poverty. Maria Antonia held divided loyalties during the conflict. She gave her political support to the Spanish King and the royalist cause by sheltering his supporters and petitioning for a pension and a return to her homeland, but she also communicated with her brother, Simón Bolívar, regarding family rural and urban properties, mines and estates, as well as political issues, and she was sympathetic to his needs. The ties of blood were strong, despite their political differences. She assumed managerial and administrative responsibilities over his affairs when he was absent from Venezuela and vigorously defended their family interests, although she always sought his opinion before making any final decisions. She was an astute observer of political conditions in Venezuela and kept the Liberator informed of events. Bolívar valued her news and advice, but he cautioned her against any involvement in the turbulent and volatile post independence political world. Women were not to make any significant contribution to the building of a nation in the aftermath of independence. Once the war ended they returned to their domestic and nurturing roles. It was only when women became educated and aware of their status, in the late nineteenth century in the countries of the Southern Cone, that the Feminist movement was born and change began.


Notes

1 Inés Quintero, “María Antonia Bolívar: Convicciones monárquicas de una criolla principal,” (paper presented at Central University of Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela, July, 2002), 2. She is the author of the biography entitled Criolla Principal: María Antonia Bolívar, hermana del Libertador (Caracas: 2003,reimp.2005) and El fabricante de peinetas (2011).

Bibliography

Avilés Pérez, Luis. “Anotaciones sobre María Antonia Bolívar.” Boletín de historia y antigüedades XXIV (1937): 88-102.

Blanco, José Félix. Bosquejo histórico de la revolución de Venezuela. Caracas: Biblioteca de la academia nacional de la historia. 1960.

Cartas del Libertador corregidas conforme a los originales. Edited by Vicente Lecuna. Caracas: Lit. y Tip. del comercio. 1929-1959.

“Cartas dirigidas a Bolívar. Correspondencia de parientes del Libertador.” Boletín de la academia nacional de la historia XVI (April –June 1933): 268-311.

Coll y Prat, Narciso. Memoriales sobre la independencia de Venezuela. Caracas: Academia Nacional, 1960.

Diccionario de historia de Venezuela. Edited by Manuel Pérez Vila. Caracas: Fundación Polar,1988.

“Gestiones ante el consejo de guerra. Sumaria información de la conducta política de Doña María Bolívar.” Boletín de la academia de la historia XXXIII (July-September 1950): 319-327.

Latin American Women in Historical Perspective. Edited by Asunción Lavrin. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1978.

Lombardi, John. Venezuela: The Search for Order: The Dream of Progress. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.

Masur, Gerhard. Simón Bolívar. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1969.

Monsalve, José Dolores. Mujeres de independencia. Bogotá: Biblioteca de historia nacional, 1926.

Papeles de Bolívar. Edited by Vicente Lecuna. Madrid: Editorial-America. 1920.

Quintero, Inés. “María Antonia Bolívar: Convicciones monárquicas de una criolla principal.” Unpublished paper presented at the Central University of Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela (July 2002): 1-11.

Royal Order, Madrid, June 20, 1829. Boletín de archivo general de la nación XXVII (September-October 1941): 150.

Selected Writings of Bolívar. Edited by Harold A. Bierck, compiled by Vicente Lecuna and translated by Lewis Bertrand.  New York: Colonial Press, 1951.

Sir Robert Ker Porter’s Caracas Diary, 1825-1842: A British Diplomat in a Newborn Nation. Edited by Walter Dupouy. Caracas: Editorial Arte, 1966.

Uzcátegui, Pinzón. “La Hermana de Bolívar donó a la patria 300 esclavos.” Boletín historia: órgano de la academia de la historia de Cartagena de Indias V (February 6, 1930): 68-69.

Yanes, Francisco Javier. Historia de la provincia de Cumaná en la transformación política de Venezuela desde el día 27 de abril de 1810 hasta el presente año de 1821.  Caracas: Editorial del Ministerio de Educación. 1960.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.