World History: Latin American Revolutions

Again on World History we're looking at a period of time nicknamed 'the Age of Revolution', and so far we've discussed the America, Haitian, French and Industrial Revolutions. The rest of the Americas during this period also saw revolution - a series of revolts and wars of independence broke out over a thirty year period ending the Spanish, and Portuguese, colonial empires. These revolutions combined Enlightenment ideas, as seen in the American Revolution, with the situation of Latin American society. Before we look at the Revolutions we have to see what society was like in the Spanish and Portuguese Empires, as best as we can at least.

Prelude to Independence

Each region of Latin America differed greatly but there are overarching themes which we can discuss. Three themes stand out: royal power, the Church, and blood. As can be expected Latin America was ruled by the crowns of either Spain or Portugal indirectly - officials were sent from Europe, sometimes even from the Americas, to rule in the monarch's name. The Spanish Empire was divided into viceroyalties - Peru, New Spain, Rio de la Plata, and New Grenada - ruled by a viceroy. Religion was important in society. The Church offered a way to rise in society, had great influence over (or controlled) the courts and education, owned land, and even controlled time via church bells. During the colonial period the Jesuits had exerted great control; this was especially prominent in Brazil where they owned their own plantations relying on indigenous labour. During the eighteenth century, as in Europe, the Church clashed with the Crown over influence and the Jesuits were widely expelled from Latin America, even though 75% of Jesuits in Mexico were born there by the time of the expulsion showing that the Jesuits recruited more from the Americas by then. However, there was vibrant blending of of faiths present in American Catholicism. In Mexico the Virgin of Guadalupe shows a synchretism between the Virgin Mary and the indigenous Tonantzin - the Basilica of Guadalupe was also built next to a site where Tonantzin was worshipped - and in Peru depictions of the Holy Trinity blended Catholic imagery with that of Inti. In the quilombos (free slave settlements) of Brazil it was not uncommon to see a merger of Catholicism and various African faiths. Finally, we have blood. Modern perceptions of race started to emerge during the colonial period and limpia de sangre (cleanness of blood) was important. This was an idea borrowed from Europe - following the defeat of the Islamic Moors in 1492 Spain ordered Muslims and Jews to convert or face expulsion, however, they were seen as having 'impure' blood so were seen as never being 'pure' Christians. This fed into the Americas with race - your blood could be 'impure' thanks to indigenous or African ancestry. Spain in particular developed the castas which were a series of over a hundred categories based on your ancestry - the main included white, indigenous, black, 'mestizo' (white-indigenous), 'mulatto' (white-black), 'zambos' (black-indigenous), and 'pardo' (black-white-indigenous). Casta paintings were even created to show the possible combinations. These categories determined your place in society but were traversable - in the 1780s and 1790s wealthy individuals of mixed ancestry could purchase gracias al sacar, basically purchasing whiteness. 

An example of a Casta painting

There were also divisions among individuals in castas. In Brazil it was possible for former slaves to own slaves as an example. Indigenous lords, caciques, could rule over indigenous communities subjected to the mita - a form of enforced labour serving the Spanish crown. There were divisions between white populations - the creoles (those born in the Americas) had a different sense of identity compared to peninsulares (those born in Spain), and peninsulares were normally favoured in society. Things came to ahead in the 1700s thanks to the Bourbon Reforms. Originally enacted in Spain they were implemented in Latin America to improve the economy, administration, and limiting the power of the Church. The Viceroyalties of New Grenada and Rio de la Plata came from these reforms (1717 and 1776 respectively), and the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1767 as well. Seeing the results of the American Revolution Spain was keen to ensure that the same did not happen so the Bourbon Reforms were also implemented to curtail creole power. The selling of offices to creoles was brought to an end, the Council of the Indies had its power taken away, creoles could no longer sit in the audiencies (high courts), and the corregidores (local and judicial officials) were replaced with French inspired intendants who had to be peninsulares. The sense of difference creoles felt were amplified by the Bourbon Reforms. Even the gracias al sacar was part of this. The Bourbon reformers hoped to limit racial tensions so offered 'whiteness' to a select few to reduce tension, but the creole, and peninsular, elite opposed this policy. This set the stage for independence, but before we discuss the famous revolts I want to discuss an overlooked one in the Andes.

The Andean Revolution

A later painting of Tupac Amaru II

This revolution has had many names: the Andean Revolution, the Andean Uprising, the Tupac Amaru Rebellion, the Tupamarista Uprising. It effectively shows how the Bourbon Reforms and revolt were not limited to a creole population as Latin America's revolutions have traditionally been portrayed as. The mita system in Peru had decimated the indigenous population - forced to work in mines, like the great silver mine at Potosi, it uprooted entire communities and as more died more of the community had to fill the quota. These communities did manage to benefit somewhat from the mine profits until the creation of the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata - now silver from Potosi ran through Buenos Aires. This exacerbated the oppression of indigenous and mestizo communities in Peru. One indigenous leader, Tomas Katari, attempted to appeal to the courts, even going to Buenos Aires in 1779 to get support. In 1780 rebellion broke around two figures. The first was around Tomas Katari - local indigenous workers and peasants wanted him to be made a cacique and when he did he dismissed the Spanish-imposed corregidor in Charcas. His plan was to build a utopian and equal society through legal means. Meanwhile, in Cusco a more violent revolution broke out. Jose Gabriel Condorcanqui was an indigenous cacique educated by Jesuits became frustrated by the harsh exploitation of indigenous communities thanks to the mita. With the help of his wife, Micaela Bastidas Puyucahua, he organised a revolt on November 4 1780- as he could trace his ancestry to the old Incan royalty to renamed himself Tupac Amaru II (Tupac Amaru was the last Inca ruler). Combining Christian and Incan imagery he pledged to defend the indigenous peoples and challenge Spanish rule - Tupac even called on creoles to join him, especially at the mine of Oruro. Tupac vowed to battle Europe, corregidors, trade monopolies, and the mita system as his followers expanded it to include unpopular caciques, local chiefs, tax collectors, and landlords. Within a week between 6,000 and 20,000 indigenous peoples joined Tupac and Micaela - 85% came from Canas y Canchis and Quispicanchis whose communities regularly were sent to Potosi. 

Those who fought were diverse and reasons why varied - as the revolution went on Tupac's emphasis on him being a king started to vanish, and Tomas Katari never claimed to be anything but a cacique chosen by his people. Although they did draw support from all communities - including creoles at Oruro - they did struggle to draw support from outside indigenous and mestizo communities. On November 17 at Sangarara around 500 soldiers and civilians hid in a church which accidentally caught fire - it was described as a 'universal slaughter...the bloodthirstiness of the enemy' which was used as a way to portray the rebels as 'Indios contra blancos' and 'Christians against Apostates'. The Bishop of Cusco even excommunicated Tupac! Indigenous communities were also not unified - in the late stage of the Revolution indigenous soldiers were used to crush the rebels. Micaela has largely been forgotten but she was a major leader - she chastised Tupac for not fighting writing 'You are causing me mortal concern' and then deciding that 'I am going forward to attack them [the Spanish]'. Thanks to Tupac, Katari, and Micaela soon all of southern Peru was in revolt but this would soon come to an end. The rebels were largely ill-equipped indigenous and mestizo peasants so they found it difficult to recruit outside these communities, or keep control of the forces. From 1781 the revolt became increasingly indigenous and radicalised - 400 creoles, Spaniards and mestizos were killed in a church in Ayopaia on February 23 1781 and had their blood drank combining Incan and Christian ritual. Katari was ambushed and mutilated in January 1781 by royalist forces which caused the radicalisation of the forces formerly under him. After failing to capture Cusco in January Tupac's forces started to splinter and creoles defected to the Spanish. He, Micaela, and some of their major leaders were captured and brutally executed - Tupac himself in May had to watch Micaela and his children be executed before being publicly and brutally quartered. This did not end the revolt though. 

Micaela Bastidas

After the deaths of Tupac and Katari the revolution moved south - during the revolt the Viceroyalty of Peru included what is now Bolivia which is where the next stage occurred. Compared to the first stages this stage was more bottom-up, nativist, and locally driven. Katari and Tupac were Quechua speaking - these rebels were Aymara. Their 'leader' reflected these points - a merchant called Julian Apaza he adopted the name Tupac Katari in order to create legitimacy and a link with the other leaders, but he resented the privilege of Quechua communities compared to the Aymara. Him and his other leaders, including his wife Bartolina Sisa, even wished to break the power of the Amarus when the Spanish had been defeated. Successfully sieging La Paz with a force of 40,000; their siege was so successful that they were able to suspend their attack for religious rites on Good Friday. Like with their Quechua counterparts in the north the Aymara faced the same issues - ethnic divisions (Quechua commanders actually abandoned Tupac Katari, Bartolina and others), poor equipment, and the force of a Spanish army over a militia. By November 1781 Tupac Katari, Bartolina and other leaders had been captured and executed. Although the revolt continued until 1783 the defeat of the Aymara forces prevented further threats. I included the Andean Revolt in this post, despite it not contributing to independence, as it is an interesting and overlooked revolt which can be contrasted with the other revolts.

Brazil

Brazil victory over Portugal at San Salvador

We'll start with Brazil for the independence movements as it is a very interesting case. Unlike the rest there was no typical independence war - it was a handover of power among the royals. Compared to the Spanish Empire the Portuguese crown had been content to leave Brazil be, attempts to increase Portuguese rule over Brazil in the late-1700s had laid the seeds of independence though. That is until Napoleon invaded Portugal in December 1807. With British aid they managed to flee Lisbon before the French arrived Queen Maria and Prince Regent João set up court in Rio de Janeiro. Immediately João issued a decree opening Brazil up for foreign trade greatly expanding the Brazilian economy: Bahia increased its imports by 50% and exports by 20% within three years, foreign ships in Rio's port rose from 90 in 1808 to 354 in 1820, and in 1815 Bahia got its first steam-driven sugar mill (followed by Pernambuco in 1817). The presence of the crown in Rio invited cultural changes to Brazil as they tried to replicate their old life in Brazil. Even after Napoleon's defeat the royals stayed in Brazil - it took a literal revolt in Portugal in 1820 for the royalty to return to Lisbon in 1821. They set up a tropical kingdom for themselves to rival Portugal - 1808 a naval academy was established, the same year in Salvador a medical school was opened, in 1816 a French-staffed Academy of Fine Arts was established, and a library containing 60,000 volumes was opened in Rio in 1814. In 1815 João decided to rise Brazil from a colony to a kingdom and when Maria died in 1816 he proclaimed himself João VI, 'King of the United Kingdoms of Portugal, Brazil, and the Algarves'. With the court in Brazil, an economic rise, population increase, and development of cultural institutes Brazilians started developing a sense of their own identity. Rio itself became an epicentre of this - it had turned from a small, viceregal capital to a vibrant, cosmopolitan metropolis. When João left in 1821 his heir, Pedro, remained behind to rule the kingdom in his name. The Cortes (Brazilian parliament) did not like this - when Brazil was a colony they held control which Pedro's presence threatened. Misreading the opinion of Brazilians it ordered Pedro to return to Lisbon and turn Brazil back into a colony. However, Brazilians, especially the new colonial elite, had developed an emerging sense of national identity and a fondness for the young king, so started publishing pamphlets and discussing with the military to ensure Pedro remained. January 9 1822 Pedro stated 'Tell the people that I will stay.' 

Pedro started relying further on a Brazilian, not Portuguese, intellectual inspired by Enlightenment thinkers called Jose Bonifacio the two tried to continue the task of limiting the Cortes and keeping Brazil together. Pedro's wife, Leopoldina, also became a national icon espousing her dedication to Brazil. Soon enough a small but radical press emerged calling for independence. As the Cortes tried to limit Pedro's power in September in national myth he drew his sword at the bank of the Ipranga River crying 'Independence or Death!'. On December 1 1822 he was declared 'Constitutional Emperor and Perpetual Defender of Brazil'. It took a small war of independence but in 1825 the Empire of Brazil came into existence. Brazil's independence is curious, especially compared to its neighbours. It was a transfer of power among elites with little violence and even then it was clear cut - it was clearly Brazilians against Portuguese. Later, this would prove disastrous for Pedro and his descendants - they would be seen as Portuguese, not Brazilian. Today many of Brazil's wealthiest are descended from the elite at the time of independence. The largely peaceful road to independence planted the seeds for Brazilian exceptionalism - Benedict Anderson has wrote how misreading or adapting the past helps creates nationalism. National exceptionalism is part of this. As Brazil's abolition of slavery (something that we'll get onto in a future World History post), transition from empire to republic, and periodic transitions from democracy to dictatorship (and vice versa) were done relatively violence-free this created an idea of exceptionalism. Brazil could achieve great changes without violence.

Mexico

Hidalgo's Church today

Mexico's path to independence is very confusing. Simon Bolivar, who we'll see later, in 1815 wrote 'The events in Mexico have been to varied, complex, rapid, and unfortunate to keep track of the course of the revolution there.' As a result I will only do a brief overview to avoid confusion. One important detail to mention is the rural nature of Mexico in the 1800s - most cities had only existed for a few centuries and originated through military or administrative means. The countryside also saw great wealth divides - the hacienda owners against the peasants - which brought in ethnic issues: slavery was common and indigenous communities were forced to work the land. Administration was weaker than in the cities so a rebellion had greater chance of spreading and conspiracies could better remain undetected. Furthermore, communities lived together so likely suffered the same oppression - these communities didn't exist in the city. Like with Portugal Napoleon's invasion weakened Spanish rule in the Americas. In 1808 a coup in Mexico City inflamed the situation between creoles and peninsulares but it took until 1810 for independence to be on the table with a subaltern uprising. This is remarkably different from the other revolts as the others came from a creole elite. Father Miguel Hidalgo was a creole and had lived among Native Americans and mestizos in his parish of Dolores in the centre of Mexico so naturally he saw the inequalities in society. He joined wealthy creoles in a plan to form a revolutionary junta but when discovered he issued the Grito de Dolores of September 16 1810 - now celebrated as Mexican Independence Day. In the name of King Ferdinand VII, (like in Haiti this didn't necessarily mean royalism), and the Virgin of Guadalupe he called for Mexican independence, land to be returned to Native Americans, that 'All slave owners shall set their slaves free within ten days', 'no other taxes shall be collected from Indians', and that caste taxes were abolished. Quickly he got widespread peasant support (quickly getting 80,000 supporters) and the Mexican Revolution began. Due to the rural nature of Hidalgo's demands, the policing in the city, and killings of both peninsulares and creoles only rural areas flocked to support them. However, his forces were crushed by the royalists at Guadalajara in January 1811, and he was captured and shot in March. His head, and that of his commanders, were displayed at Alhondiga in Guanajuato for a decade.

Hidalgo's role was taken over by another secular priest, Jose Maria Morelos, who was a mestizo from Mihoacan as well. Morelos was a skilled commander helping the peasants take cities like Oaxaca, and he abandoned proclamations of loyalty to Ferdinand. He also went further than Hidalgo aiming for full land redistribution to the peasants and fully integrating mestizos and Native Americans into society. Morales' forces even proclaimed a republic in Chipalcingo on November 6 1813, but his time would be short lived. Captured in 1815 he was executed and the resurgent royalist forces decimated the peasant forces, however, guerrilla warfare continued. Like in the Andes creoles had refused to join due to the emphasis on indigenous identity, rural aspect of the revolt, and opposition to it from the Church's authorities. The revolt limped on under a mestizo called Vicente Guerrero and a creole veteran, Agustin de Iturbide, was sent to wipe him out. That is until a mutiny in Spain in 1820 - Spanish troops mutinied in Cadiz forcing Ferdinand to accept a liberal constitution. A new liberal Spain ordered viceroys to seek accommodation with insurgents which upset the creoles - Spain was again telling America what to do. Iturbide joined Guerrero issuing the Plan of Iguala in February 1821: Mexico would become an independent monarchy with the liberal 1812 Constitution of Cadiz, Catholicism would be the legitimate religion, the Church would keep its lands and privileges, and all (men) but be equal before the law. This conservative plan appealed to creoles and Mexico managed to win its independence, (bringing what would become Chiapas, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Guatemala with it). For the next century Mexico would swing between empire and republic, and the rural/urban divide continues today.

Bolivar and San Martin

San Martin (left) and Bolivar (right)

Before we look at the independence of the rest of Spanish Latin America we need to look at Simon Bolivar and Jose de San Martin. Although I am personally against 'Great Man History' due to the personality cults surrounding them they have to be understood to understand independence and what came of it. Both were creole elites, Bolivar from Venezuela and San Martin from Argentina, were skilled military generals, were educated in Europe (San Martin even fought against Napoleon's forces), and are now seen as the 'Liberators' of South America. However, Bolivar is regularly referred to as 'The Liberator' - in most cities in several South American countries you will see something named after him, as well as the entire country of Bolivia. Since 1830 a hero cult has emerged about Bolivar, something he tried to construct during his life. In his own stories he was a master seducer of women, apparently knocked the hat off of the head of the young Ferdinand playing polo, and was there to witness Napoleon's coronation. All these stories are either exaggerations or total fabrications but it stuck in national identity. Bolivar and San Martin being seen as the Liberators also contrast greatly with what happened in Mexico and Brazil - they were neither a peninsular elite as in Brazil nor were they oppressed subalterns as in Mexico. Bolivar's baptismal gift in 1784 were several plantations with slaves. 

Independence for Spanish South America

Llaneros

We cannot discuss all aspects of the independence struggle in South America so we will instead do a broad overview highlighting certain key parts. A large part of this is because all the independence movements came together but remained independent from one another. Like in Mexico they had the same causes: the Bourbon Reforms and defeat of Ferdinand at Napoleon's hands. In Venezuela creole elites were worried that the non-white population, which greatly outnumbered them, could take power so they moved to preempt it. In March 1811 a congress was elected on a male franchise excluding non-whites but a radical group, called the Patriotic Society of Caracas, under figures like Francisco de Miranda and Simon Bolivar called for independence. In July they got what they wanted. A Spanish force from Puerto Rico arrived in March 1812 and utilised the limitations of the new constitution - white and urban it excluded most of the population. In particular the llaneros, free-ranging horsemen of whom many were mixed race, became alienated, especially as Caracas aimed to place the plains under private ownership. Offering slaves their freedom and allying the llaneros routed Bolivar, crushed the republic, and Miranda was captured and deported to Spain. Meanwhile, New Grenada (which included modern Colombia, Panama, and Ecuador) saw a junta take over under Camilo Torres in Bogota in 1811; Buenos Aires formed a junta in 1810 which was taken over by pro-Jacobin figures who sent Manuel Belgrano out to capture Potosi; San Martin joined the Buenos Aires junta; and in Chile the colony became divided between those advocating independence, royalism, and a compromise. Bolivar later returned to Venezuela with a new set of ideas.

Bolivar's career is full of defeat, exile, victory, and debates concerning the future - we get a clear look into his views in his 1815 letter while briefly exiled in Jamaica. One key trend to emerge is an abandonment of nationalism in favour of a pan-American identity. An excerpt reads 'I would like to see America become the greatest nation on Earth' - not Venezuela but 'America'. He would drum up support against Spanish rule by appealing to a shared 'American' identity and using the language of slavery - in the same letter he wrote 'We are at a level even lower than servitude, and by that very reason hindered from elevating ourselves to the enjoyment of freedom'. It did work - the llaneros who once defeated him in 1812 became some of his greatest allies. In 1813 the 'Guerra a Muerte' (War to the Death) was declared which issued a war, until 1820, which involved the execution, and at times massacres, against peninsulares. At the same time this idea of American identity was amorphous, another issue was declared stating that Spanish who wanted to could become American. At the same time he was willing to allow slaves join the military in reward for freedom - partially to get soldiers - but also to ensure they would be killed. At the same time he was infuriated that Spanish Caribbean colonies, Cuba and Puerto Rico, refused to join the revolution. He also held a pessimistic view towards Americans. He was a great admirer of Britain, even wanting his free America to be protected by Britain, and viewed the British system as best - a limited democracy overseen by a strong figure. In the Jamaica Letter he wrote 'I cannot persuade myself  that the New World is ready at this time to be governed by a grand republic.' Bolivar was also keen to ensure who the figure would be: himself. After independence he would try and proclaim himself 'president for life' and during his life would try and build a cult of personality. In 1822 his clash with San Martin while in Peru may have been down to this.

The Battle of Ayucucho

The term libertadores emerged to describe the creole generals during the Wars of Independence: Bolivar, San Martin, Belgrano, Andres de Santa Cruz, Bernardo O'Higgins etc. Despite an early pushback after 1815 Spain struggled to face the various revolts over its empire. Some of the last areas to remain in Spanish hands were the Andean provinces - we can look back to the Andean Revolution of the 1780s to explain why. The earlier revolt, and the bloodshed involved, had made the creole elite wary of armed rebellion; there were calls for independence but when violence was on the table support dissipated. As a result outside forces had to play a larger part in independence. In July 1821 San Martin entered Lima and proclaimed the independence of Peru and even then faced issues: the elite were angered by his anti-peninsular stance and taxing of creoles, and O'Higgins facing troubles in Chile meant he had to meet up with Bolivar to defeat the last royalists. The disagreement between the two, and San Martin's weaker position, allowed Bolivar to claim the army to route the Spanish from Peru, and San Martin chose to retire to Europe. The royalist forces were defeated by Antonio Jose de Sucre in 1824 at Ayacucho ending the Spanish colonial empire.

Independence for Who?: Women

Now I want to discuss the limits and forgotten aspects of the Latin American Revolutions. Women have largely been forgotten by national histories - as we saw women like Micaela Bastidas and Bartolina Sisas physically led the Andean Revolution. Like in later Mexican Revolutions women also fought and acted as recruiters; a 1811 court case accused a woman of trying to seduce royalist men into joining the rebels. San Martin even acknowledged women's involvement in independence stating that 'The more delicate sex naturally should be more patriotic' and women adopted the language of the revolutionaries, Manuela Saenz was arrested in 1827 in Lima so cited the constitution to defend herself. However, as conservative forces took over, or always existed among those fighting, women's positions were sidelined, ignored, or given to men. San Martin's honouring of women who supported him in Lima was to give their husbands, brothers, and fathers membership of the elite 'Order of the Sun'. As we saw in the American and French Revolutions despite calls for liberty and citizenship only applied to men, and even the propertied men. The strength of a conservative Church and ideas based on limited suffrage meant that women were barred from these ideas. These ideas could be used to help themselves and, as we'll see when we discuss feminism, were used to get rights.

Independence for Who?: Race

As you've probably noticed those who took power were creoles - the only one not based around creole identity was Mexico and even then by independence indigenous, and mestizo, identity had been replaced by creole. Race was very important in Latin America's revolutions - the limited acceptance of non-whites in Venezuela's first republic allowed Spanish forces to utilise their disgruntlement. Bolivar's sister, Maria Antonia, wrote to him in 1825 from Caracas stating the city had become 'uninhabitable because of the excesses and threats domination by the people of color' so he wrote to the vice-president urging him to send 4,000 troops. However, figures, like Bolivar, had moments of realisation about racism in society. Writing about Peru in the Jamaica Letter he said 'Peru...is marked by two elements that are inimical to any just and liberal regime: gold and slaves. The first corrupts everything; the second is inherently corrupt.' The language of being slaves were adopted by the slaves themselves, and pragmatism aided abolition - just like the Spanish local militias offered slaves freedom if they enlisted. A Peruvian slave, Gregorio Layoso, fled from his Spanish owner stating that his was his duty 'as [a] lover of my patria'. Peter Blanchard has also argued 'Was his love genuine?' - did Layoso skilfully use nationalist discourse to win his freedom? Or did he see freedom for Peru as being freedom for all people? Post-independence states would have a dichotomy with race - both praising and disparaging non-white identity. Several Central American states, like Guatemala and Nicaragua, would hold up indigismo to forge a national identity while oppressing indigenous communities, and Bolivar would lament that Gran Colombia didn't have an indigenous past like Peru and Mexico had, but blamed South America's multi-racial ancestry for their inability to form a state. Slavery remained widespread - only Chile abolished slavery during independence (in 1823). Colombia, Venezuela, and Argentina abolished slavery in the 1850s but it took Brazil until 1888 to do so.

Aftermaths

A painting of Bolivar depicting him positively 

As can expected the hopes of revolution soon turned to ash after independence. Gran Colombia collapsed in 1831, just a year after Bolivar's death. Bolivar too was extremely unpopular - to escape an assassination attempt he had to hide under a bridge for a night which may have led him to contract TB in later life. Only after he died did he become universally popular. Brazil and Mexico faced clashes over the morality of monarchism; Pedro and Bonifacio may have been liberal compared to the Cortes but they made it clear that they believed that power should remain in royal hands. As the revolts were elite creole led this set a trend for Latin American history - wealthy landowners still held power in society and the rural-urban, and peasant-landowner clash continues in many regions to this day. Following independence most states had to deal with clashes and debates about identity, power, and democracy which has led to the stereotype that Latin American history is that of despots and dictators. However, it is important to note that liberal, multi-party democracy as seen in Europe, North America, and Australia/New Zealand only emerged as the 'right' political system after 1945 (and even then only consolidated after 1989). 

Conclusion

The Latin American Revolutions did more than just end Spanish rule in, most of, the Americas. It brought in debates of what it is to be a citizen and what it means to form a nation. Using Benedict Anderson we can see the attempts to build a national, or super-national, identity. From this identities about nation emerged across the country: indigismo in various states; peaceful transition in Brazil; Bolivar is regarded a national hero across the political spectrum in five countries; and a rural identity against an urban one continues in many areas. Taking Mexico as an example the Mexican Revolution of 1910 and the Zapatistas Uprising in 1994 have taken to heart the rural rising of Miguel Hidalgo. Of course, there were limits for the lower classes, women, and non-whites. These conflicting identities have to be acknowledged in order to understand these revolutions and the creation of the nation.

A mural to Hidalgo in a Zapatista village

The sources I have used are as follows:

-Edwin Williamson, The Penguin History of Latin America, (London: Penguin, 1992)

-Benjamin Keen, Robert Buffington, and Lila Caimari, (eds.), Keen’s Latin American Civilization: History and Society, 1492 to the Present, 8th Edition (Boulder: Westview Press, 2004)

-Paula Muray, (ed.), Women and Gender in Modern Latin America, (New York: Routledge, 2014)

-Peter Blanchard, 'The Language of Liberation: Slave Voices in the Wars of Independence', Hispanic American Historical Review, 82:3, (2002), 499-523

-E. Bradford Burns, A History of Brazil, Third Edition, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993)

-Leslie Bethell, (ed.), The Cambridge History of Latin America Volume III: From Independence to c.1870, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)

-Simon Bolivar, David Bushnell, and Frederick Fornoff, (eds. and trans.), El Libertador: Writings of Simon Bolivar, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)

-John Chasteen, 'Simon Bolivar: Man and Myth', in Samuel Brunk and Ben Fallow, (eds.), Heroes and Hero Cults in Latin America, (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2006), 21-39

-Eric van Young, 'Islands in the Storm: Quiet Cities and Violent Countrysides in the Mexican Independence Era', Past and Present, 118, (1988), 130-155

The next World History post we will look at the 1848 Revolutions: these revolts swept across Europe bringing ideas of liberalism, socialism, nationalism, and industry to attention. For other World History posts we have a list. For future blog updates please see our Facebook or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby.