Independence and Consolidation of New States in Latin America

The wars of independence (1791-1825), the unstable aftermath of independence (1825-1870) and national consolidation (1870-1910) marked the political transformation of Latin America during the “long 19th century.” The wars of independence led to the political separation of most of Latin America from their former colonial rulers: Spain, Portugal, and France. Often described as civil wars because they involved violent class and racial conflict, the wars of independence resulted in, not only the formation of 17 independent states, but also widespread economic devastation, social disruption, and decades of political instability. From the 1820s to the 1870s, generals, who had led the struggle for independence, recruited personal armies and fought with one another incessantly over who should rule. By the 1870s, instability gradually ended and national consolidation began. Emerging from the American born upper class, newly wealthy oligarchs, associated with the export economy (coffee, metals, oil, wheat, and beef) and foreign capital overthrew the old style caudillos and established new regimes. Based on “democracy for the few,” the oligarchs, during the last quarter of the 19th century, centralized governmental functions and formed national armies and police forces that solidified their control.

The wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon precipitated Latin America’s independence movement. This was particularly true of the Haitian slave revolt from 1791 to 1804. When news of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen spread to the French sugar plantation colony of Saint-Domingue, the mulatto population sought equality with whites. But mulatto demands prompted a rebellion for freedom among the slaves. On January 1, 1804, after 13 years of war, the former slaves officially declared Haitian Independence. Black army leaders, Toussaint L’Ouverture and Jean Jaques Desallines, defeated in succession the French colonial regime, a British invasion force and a Napoleonic invasion. The loss of life during Haiti’s struggle for independence was far greater than in the other parts of the Americas. More than one-third of the black population died. Of the 400,000 or so former slaves (the estimates are rough on the slave population, many estimates say 500,000) only 250,000 remained. Black armies killed or drove out the white population and many of the mulattoes. British and French invaders each lost approximately 50,000 men. They succumbed to the violence of war and to yellow fever. Revolutionary leaders also perished. L’Ouverture died in a French prison in 1803 and Desallines was assassinated in 1806. In the first document that I would like you to read, General Desallines “informally” announced independence on November 29, 1803, the day that Napoleon’s army withdrew. He reveals the animosities generated by slavery and 13 years of racial war and hatred (you can read the document by clicking here).

In contrast to Haiti, the least violent independence movement occurred in Portuguese America. When Napoleon invaded the Iberian Peninsula in 1807, the Portuguese King escaped to Brazil on an English ship. While there, the Portuguese King established Brazil as an independent Kingdom. When the monarch returned to Portugal in 1820, the King’s son, Pedro I, declared Brazil’s independence in 1822 to prevent the Portuguese Parliament from reestablishing colonial rule.

In Spanish America, Napoleon presented a different problem. By imprisoning the Spanish King in 1808, Napoleon undermined the legitimacy of the Spanish colonial government. As the Spanish-American upper class argued over who had the right to rule, lower class rebellions of Indians, mestizos and mulattoes, especially in Mexico and Venezuela, shaped the political future of Spanish America. Upper class creoles, the descendents of Spaniards born in America, organized armies that accomplished two purposes; they smashed lower class rebellions by 1815 and eventually achieved independence by 1825.

Simón Bolívar, the liberator of northern South America, Peru, and Bolivia, came from this creole class. His political ideas clearly expressed the biases of his social origins. He mistrusted the lower classes and advocated elite-run governments. In the second document I would like you to read, these prejudices are clearly shown in Bolívar’s advice to the legislators gathered at Angostura in 1819 to discuss the proposed constitution for the new state of Venezuela (you can read the document by clicking here).

Mexican President, Porfirio Diaz, who governed with an iron hand from 1876 to 1910, exemplified the transition to oligarchic rule. Although he was a rough mestizo military leader, Diaz enjoyed the support of the Mexican oligarchs and their articulate spokesmen. With the oligarchy’s help, he ended 50 years of civil war. Through concessions to foreign investors, particularly in mining, railroads, and oil, Diaz presided over an impressive economic boom in exports to the United States. To maintain economic growth, the oligarchy sought stability, and Diaz provided. The third document I would like you to read is from an interview given by Porfirio Diaz in 1908 to the American reporter James Creelman (you can read some of the interview by clicking here, please read pg. 236 paragraph 3 - pg. 245 paragraph 3 [it's not actually 9 pages, there are very large pictures throughout as it's a magazine article]). Diaz candidly revealed how he achieved order.

Once you have read the documents, I would like you all to reflect on discuss the following: Desallines claimed that cruelty is sometimes necessary to achieve important political ends. What is your view of this proposition? Is it a universal claim crossing all cultures? What is Bolívar’s view of the common people of Venezuela? What types of institutions does he recommend to rule these people? Why are these types needed? What role should the liberators (the leaders of the independence armies) play in the new government proposed by Bolívar? What was the relationship between the Haitian revolution and the principles of the French revolution of 1789? How did this compare with the relationship of Bolívar’s independence movement—was all of this a common part of a single age of Atlantic revolution? In what way did Porfirio Diaz, as ruler of Mexico, fulfill the ideas of Bolívar? How did Diaz view the common people? What kind of government did he establish? In what ways did his policies relate to the economy? What was Diaz’s goal for education? Using these documents together: What were some of the key issues in Latin American politics in the 19th century? Your thoughts…