Bolivar Essay

Both Latin American revolutions and the American revolution were different in term of cause and the result it brought with it. For example, it was much easier for the Americans to gain independence than the Latin Americans because of the unity they manage to take and keep despite the discontent each colonist had against each other. Both of these revolutions were fighting for independence from the Old World because they could not stand the strict systems, applied to them by their mother countries, that prevented the development of a rapidly growing colonial economy. These policies were designed to maximize the trade of a nation to bring money into the suppressing powers but not for the colonists themselves.

With other Latin American uprisings occurring Simon Bolivar led the South American independence. Bolivar was a wealthy Creole born in Venezuela but educated in Spain. Influenced by Enlightenment ideas, Bolivar called for independence for all South Americans. He gained firm control of his native Venezuela in 1819. His armies then turned toward Columbia and Ecuador. In the south Jose de San Martin rallied Argentinean forces against Spain. Bolivar and San Martin met in Peru, which became independent along with Upper Peru (Bolivia) in 1824. Although Bolivar was unsuccessful in uniting South Americans into a single nation, he is known as the continent's "liberator."

After the victory there was a split between the two revolution leaders due to differences in direction for Mexico. The Constitutionalist

Bolivar’s ingenious military tactics used to overthrow the Spanish social structure

The period between 1813 and July of 1814, known as the Second Republic, is in reality the Terrible Year of Venezuelan History. The “War to Death” decree creates a furor, and the combats and indecisive battles, won or lost, follow one upon the other with increasing rapidity. Despite important victories, Bolívar as well as General Santiago Mariño (who had previously liberated the eastern areas of the nation) find themselves obliged to give way in the face of a more numerous adversary led by the royalist José Tomás Boves.

In the early 20th century, both Russian and Mexican peoples were both verily dissatisfied with their respective governments. Archaic standards and unjust politics led to unrest and the stirring of the winds of rebellion. With similar political and economic motives, these geographically distanced and different groups of nearly uniform peasantry both stood against their leaders in dynamic revolutions that would eventually end in vastly different sociopolitical positions in their newly claimed nations.

Models for post-revolutionary Latin American government are born of the complex economic and social realities of 17th and 18th century Europe. From the momentum of the Enlightenment came major political rebellions of the elite class against entrenched national monarchies and systems of power. Within this time period of elitist revolt and intensive political restructuring, the fundamental basis for both liberal and conservative ideology was driven deep into Latin American soil. However, as neither ideology sought to fulfill or even recognize the needs or rights of mestizo people under government rule, the initial liberal doctrine pervading Latin American nations perpetuated

Simón Bolívar was said to be a revolutionary during the period of the early nineteenth century because he wanted to change Latin America. His goal was to promote change and gain independence for the Latin American states from Spanish rule, and

The Latin American revolution did not fulfill the goals of the revolution. Although they gained independence from Spain, the social construct did not change. This is the opposite of the Haitian Revolution. In Haiti, the slaves fought against slavery in many violent protest including burning of plantations. Ultimately, the whole social construct reversed from French officials and les grands blancs on top and the slaves on the bottom to les grands blancs not being a part of society and the slaves on top. In the long run, the large plantations supported the whole economy of Haiti and once slavery was abolished, the small farms did not come close to the same profit. In this way, the economical impact of the revolution was not successful, but the

One can see this by looking at France. Even after going through the Reign of Terror, the nation still ceased to successfully change their government. The revolution wasn’t completely over until after Napoleon took reign. Although it was considered to be over, the country was still uneasy after the death of Napoleon. The Latin American Revolution was resolved clearer. They had successfully won independence from Spain. This is how these revolutions differ. How is it that France is so unsuccessful compared to the Latin American Revolution which had similar causes? To answer this, the style of the revolutions must be analyzed. The French Revolution wanted to change the style of government, while the Latin American Revolution was more focused towards gaining independence from a government. This proposes the question of why is it easier to create a new government than to change an old one. The revolutions truly are the same scenario played out in different

What once was a relatively free and peaceful place started to feel the wrath of the cruel invaders. After decades of the Spanish rule, the Latin American colonies decided to finally take back what once was theirs. Latin America, under the rule of Spanish forces, faced problems. The revolutions that took place during this time were influenced by the ideas from the Age of Enlightenment.

Over a hundred years ago countries from the new world were under the control of big wealthy kingdoms from Europe. Then those countries decided that they didn’t want those kingdoms to rule over them and started revolutions to try and win independence. As a result we have the countries of the South America. Their revolutions were both similar and different.

     There was a huge revolution in the country of Mexico that started in the year 1910, led by Porfirio Diaz, the president of Mexico in 1910. In the 1860’s Diaz was important to Mexican politics and then was elected president in 1877. Diaz said that he would only be president for one year and then would resign, but after four years he was re-elected as the President of Mexico. Porfirio Diaz and the Mexican revolution had a huge impact on the country of Mexico that is still felt in some places today.

Mexico was building up to its revolution long before activists like Francisco Madero and Emiliano Zapata. From 1840 to 1910; Mexico went from a war-torn and newly freed nation to a nation on the brink of civil war. How did it get there? Through a series of wars, leaders, and policies, which proved causation politically, socially, and economically to the Mexican Revolution.

The Independence of Latin America was a process caused by years of injustices, discriminations, and abuse, from the Spanish Crown upon the inhabitants of Latin America. Since the beginning the Spanish Crown used the Americas as a way to gain riches and become greater in power internationally. Three of the distinct causes leading Latin America to seek independence from Spain, were that Spain was restricting Latin America from financial growth, (this included restrictions from the Spain on international trade, tax burden, and laws which only allowed the Americas to buy from Spain), The different social groups within Latin America, felt the pressure of the reforms being implicated on them