In the Spanish speaking caribbean the national ethos of both Cuba and DR revolve around the figures of Marti (in the case of Cuba)and Duarte (in the case of DR) as THE founding fathers (the DR recognizes supposedly three founding fathers but most would be in agreement that Duarte is the big kahuna in the trinity). I posit this with respect to both figures and with the utmost respect for the individuals themselves: That had the swords of their respective national struggles carried less embarrassing or incovenient baggage neither man would've been considered the father of their respective nations. In the case of Marti the sword of the Cuban revolution, it's maximum leader holding the rank of Generalisimo over the rebel Cuban forces, was not Cuban born but Dominican by birth, Maximo Gomez. Gomez's biographers even offer a tantalyzing glimpse into Gomez's own perception of the situtaion by pointing out how the aged General refused the Cuban presidency because of the hostility his foreign may give rise to. In the case of Duarte Santana was the sword of the independence movement that seperated us from Haiti, but as most know Santana, who was initially labeled "El Libertador" by a grateful Dominican congress and even had a sword struck with said legend by said congress, committted the grave folly of returning DR back to the Spanish fold, thereby relinquishing forever what would have otherwise been his and which, with the passage of time, fell upon the figure of Duarte, namely the title of "Padre de la Patria".

My question is this: did historians in the Spanish speaking caribbean neatly fabricate what might in reality be an untruth, namely that these men are the "Padre de La Patria" of their respective nations, in order to fill a void that would have been glaring otherwise?

Interesting article, I've always wonder the same thing was Duarte that important for our independence? did he really played such a mayor role? Duarte might have founded the "Trinitaria" but the ones fighting in the battlefield and making the crucial decisions were others.

This is true about Duarte and I tend to agree with you. Anyone can sit and write pamhlets. Liberty is gained at the edge of a sword, not by the stroke of a pen. Marti died in his very first and very minor skirmish. He gave his life but that's a strange honor that was bestowed upon him considering that the bulk of the fighting amongst the rebels and the Spaniards in Cuba occured after Marti's death.

Guys those eras were not like today where any yahoo can come online and 'publish' what they wish. Not anyone could have filled their role in that time. Literacy was more precious, and even rarer a full education and commitment to liberal and republican ideals. Those who did read or hear the rhetoric of these men would have considered their arguments more deeply, while today ppl just tune out or shout back talking points. To actually be published in that era , whether by your own fund or others, was also an obstacle. Finally censorship was a very real matter back then.

So the topic is a great question, but in answering it let's not play down the role of intellectual agitators in the ages of revolutions. Back then brilliant and charismatic men could make a big difference and could be as crucial as generals to revolutionary success. The best men of the era were both (ex. Bolivar).

Right now I' reading an older book about Jose Nuñez de Caceres and the first republic. Now I don't think anyone would claim him as the genuine Padre de la Patria but as I go through it I think I'll get a sense of what weight was put on DUarte by historians of other eras, and whether his contribution has become inflated in our era.

"So the topic is a great question, but in answering it let's not play down the role of intellectual agitators in the ages of revolutions. "

I doubt very much that the rank and file of the Ejercito Libertadores in both Cuba and DR read much, if any, of EITHER Duarte or Marti's writings. Their writings have been largely a thing of posterity, especially in the case of Duarte who was only elavated to his lofty post through mechanations that occured during the Hereaux disctatorship. Besides, as you alluded to yourself literacy was very rare indeed and even rarer among warriors. Blood makes a nation, not ink. The articulation of the ideal is the afterthought.

No question blood makes a nation. I think I have spilled more ink on this forum in defense of Santana than anyone else, and even carried a handle in his honor. Also I would lean towards believing Duarte is inflated. Still I'm not entirely convinced, and I hope you can flesh out more about these machinations in Hereaux's reign.

Back to the role of revolutionary era intellectuals, even in their own time it is not just their writings that influence others. Adult men willing to fight are not a rarity, definitely not in the 19th C. Caribbean. However much rarer are charismatic literate men. They are the ones who will influence and convince those key colonists;

1- who are propertied and stand to lose the most in a failed struggle
2- who will fund the struggle and provide arms and food, and also smuggling/logistics networks,
3- who will form the officer corp and general staff; and in the case of DR who would bring their region's manpower into the struggle
3- who can influence the agents of foreign powers (VERY important in the Caribbean)
4- who will build a state and republic after the struggle

Remember also that in the case of DR we are talking about a struggle initiated by efforts of organized secret societies, not mass uprising. Secret societies are not spontaneous but the work of enlightened individuals. In the absence of secret religion (backbone of Haitian Revolution secret societies) these kinds of societies are the product of more literate middle classes, more so than popular castes. So with DR this is one case where the articulation of the ideal was at work before the first machete was unsheathed. Finally there were influential literate Dominican men in the administration and clergy with designs on unifying with France, US etc. Men like Santana who led Dominican revolutionaries could have easily lined up behind them in the absence of a Duarte influencing them towards independence. The illiterate rank and file in this era were loyal to local chiefs like Santana and would have followed them either way, so Duarte and the Trinitarios agitation is important to how these chiefs chose their allegiances.

Both Duarte & Marti were very much more idealistic in their persona. Those types of men rarely make good fighters or generals.. I've always considered Duarte the "idealogical father" of DR.

The part highlighted...yes, the trinitarios were influential in the initial phase of the independence movement but they weren't the only group vying for independence nor where they, as events would demonstrate, the most influential or powerful. The real founders of the Republic were rustic men with little, if any education. Remember that the only group in the Republic back then that met all the prerequisites you listed were the hateros, the only real dominant class left after the colonial elites all fled and hardly a class to be identified with men of letters.

So cib the question becomes why would these rustic hateros choose independence over the various plots to seek a protectorate? As I mentioned these plots had their own organized proponents. Since we know how things played out 15 years later we know that Santana did eventually go this route, and this puts even more emphasis on the question.

Were he and other hateros personally convinced by the agitation of Duarte's movement and other similar secret plots?

Or maybe they understood (as was borne out in 1865) that these movements had spread enough ideas amongst the populace that they would resist a new imperial master?

I don't know the answer but it is fair to say that a class like the hateros, who meet the conditions I list, would not lightly embark on a military adventure, and that they would have a very conservative ethos. That they did embark on the struggle, and did so in pursuit of independence and not a more conservative option, seems to imply to me that just as in the other revolutions of the era ideological agents played a significant role.

I would posit that it was BECAUSE of their conservatism that they sought independence from Haiti. The Hispanic ethos beckoned them and was only just dormant during the occupation. As for the protectorate...that wasn't for lack of trying. But just because there were groups willing and able in the Republic of that time to set up some type of protectorate doesn't mean that there were colonial masters ready to bite for a variety of reasons. But the trend of thought was there and had its very powerful proponents among the influential.