José María Melo
Colombian politician and general / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
José María Dionisio Melo y Ortiz (October 9, 1800 – June 1, 1860) was a Colombian general and political figure who fought in the South American wars of independence, and who rose to power and briefly held the presidency of Colombia in 1854. Of Pijao ancestry, he is considered the country's first and only indigenous president.[1]
José María Dionisio Melo y Ortiz | |
---|---|
7th President of the Republic of New Granada | |
In office April 17, 1854 – December 4, 1854 | |
Preceded by | José María Obando |
Succeeded by | José de Obaldía (as interim president) |
Personal details | |
Born | October 9, 1800 Chaparral, Tolima, Viceroyalty of New Granada |
Died | June 1, 1860 La Trinitaria, Chiapas, Mexico |
Political party | Liberal (Draconian) |
Spouse(s) | Teresa de Vargas París Juliana Granados |
Joining the revolutionary army of Simón Bolívar in 1819, Melo distinguished himself in numerous battles of the wars of independence, including the decisive Battle of Ayacucho. During the collapse of Gran Colombia he was exiled to Venezuela. After participating in another failed revolution.
Melo returned to Colombia in 1840 and became involved in the Democratic Societies [es], reformist political groups made up of middle-class artisans. He supported the presidency of José Hilario López, the first Liberal to take power in the country. Amidst a schism in the Liberal Party and a deteriorating political situation in the capital, Melo took power in a coup d'etat in 1854. He ruled for eight months until he was overthrown by an alliance of Conservatives and rival Liberals.
Once again exiled to Central America, Melo fought against the invasion of Nicaragua by American mercenary William Walker, and pledged his support to Mexican President Benito Juárez at the outset of the Reform War. He was captured by conservative troops in Chiapas in 1860 and executed.
Melo is a controversial figure in Colombian history. After his death, his regime was characterized as an apolitical military dictatorship, and his role in the 19th century struggle between liberals and conservatives was generally minimized or forgotten. In the late 20th century, however, historians began to reexamine his legacy.[2]