Draft One of Term Paper on: Simon Bolivar
IBH History of the Americas
Simon Bolivar does not deserve the title of “Liberator of Latin America.”
Latin America as we know it today has undergone many changes throughout history. The beginning for this time of change was 1808. Spain, the country most widely responsible for the colonization of Latin America, was in trouble with France’s master of conquest, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napolien overthrew the King of Spain and replaced him with his brother, Joseph Bonaparte. The repercusions of this evet rolled through Latin America and primed the atmosphere for revolution. The colonial people of Latin America had no loyalty to the new Jing Joseph. This lack of respect for the new
…show more content…
In Venezuela, the Republics are torn down by bloody counter-revolutions, led by non-creoles. In Mexico, Father Hidalgo and Morelos were crushed by their conservative countrymen.
The second phase, which was less political and more militarily based took place between 1815 and 1825, and ended with the triumph of the patriots. It was an an all-out militarization of the war; Simón Bolívar, for example, was able to incorporate popular elements into his armies, such as the llaneros (plainsmen), who had previously been formidable enemies of the patriot enterprise, and actually had forced his early attempts at independence into the ground. There change of loyalty to him indicated his own changing in value and understanding that he would need to please more than the creole class.
In Mexico, a different process took place, but it reflects the real politics that characterized this successful predominatly military phase: the Royalist commander Agustín de Iturbide assimilated conservative and progressive elements into an independent monarchy with him at its head. He did not last long, but he lasted long enough to ensure the transition from colonial to national Mexico. The victory of the patriots was ambigious, however the social and political structures of power continued to be oppressive for the mass majority of the people in the new republics.
Throughout the nineteenth century, incessant civil war resulting from the powder keg of popular
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."
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.
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
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 revolutions occurred during the 18th- and 19th- centuries. These revolutions had multiple issues that shaped their independence and wars, such as the social structures of their colonies. At the top of Spanish society were the Peninsulares, which were the most powerful people who were born in Spain, and the only class that could have jobs within the government. They also had power over economy and government. Whereas the Creoles were
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
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.
Prior to its independence Latin America had been controlled by external forces for hundreds of years. To be freed of control from these outside interests did not in any way guarantee Latin America a return to the status quo. In fact, the inhabitants of Latin America had done very well in assimilating their in house controllers. They adopted European language, religion, color, and just about everything else that the European culture had to offer them. Although they were free to do as they please and run their own affairs in the global neighborhood as we know it, they struggled to create an entity for themselves. They embody too much of what is not native to their region, yet the people that used to represent their land 500 years earlier
Simon Bolivar, who had a reputation of being a liberator, took center stage. The common folk began to trust his words, as he talked about fighting for the resources that were theirs, ideals taken directly from the American Revolution itself. Also with the power struggle created by the Napoleonic wars, uprisings began. The most prominent of this movement was the uprising in Chuquisaca in 1809, which led to the formation of the Government Juntas. This group focused on taking the power from the Spanish and giving it to the people. Seeing the movement in Bolivia take shape, Latin Nations such as Peru began to provide military support to Bolivian liberators. Surprisingly, America didn’t live up to its reputation, having no negative impact on this revolution. Normally, America had been notorious for backing up the dictators or colonial powers and suppressing the Latin liberators. All in all, the combination of a power struggle brought upon by foreign wars, introduction of revolutionary independence ideals, proper leadership, and foreign aid, the Bolivian revolution was successful in liberating the nation from Spanish Colonial power after 16 years of conflict.
Comprised of landowners, lawyers, judges, priests, military officers and public officials, the creole and mazomba leaders of Latin American society found insatiable inspiration from the American and French Revolutions of the eighteenth century, and flooded Latin America with a liberal movement for independent nations. Conservatives, in contrast, sought to preserve the traditions of the colonial period, and the Orthodox rule of both the church and foreign-born royal authorities. Yet Old World flavor soured bitterly in a New World teeming with liberal thinkers and daring rebels. Desiring to surpass Old World peninsular and reinós rulers, creole and mazomba won control over local resources and economic development.
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.
In processes of Independence in South American and Brazil happened very differently. In the Spanish American process of revolution there were lots of movements for rebellion (Chasteen:93). Many of the movements were set in motion when the king of Spain, Carlos IV, and Prince Fernando, were captured by Neapolitan (Chasteen:92). The colonies questioned the leadership of the Spanish crown. In Mexico, two priests sparked different rebellions. Father Miguel Hidalgo gained support from indigenous and mestizo people with the phrase “Americans versus Europeans” (Chasteen:96). This turned into rebellion against the Peninsulars and, unintentionally, creole since it was difficult for the fighters to tell them apart (Chasteen:96). Father José María Morelos
Many nations across time and the world have experienced a revolution. From the American revolution to the French revolution, history has proven conflict can engage a nation at any moment. Tanter explains that two possible scenarios, changes in the economic development and the level of education are likely to cause revolutions (Tanter 264). A revolution can be composed of a group of individuals who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in exchange for change in the existing
Throughout its history Mexico has had many revolutions. The most famous perhaps is the Mexican Revolution from 1910-1920. The people of Mexico were getting tired of the dictator rule of President Porfino Diaz. People of all classes were fighting in the revolution. The middle and upper classes were dissatisfied with the President’s ways. The lower and working class people had many factors such as poor working conditions, inflation, inferior housing, low wages, and deficient social services. Within the classes everyone was fighting; men, women, and children all contributed to the fight for freedom from Diaz (Baxman 2). This revolution proved to be the rise and fall of many leaders.
The Mexican Revolution was one of the great revolutionary upheavals of the twentieth century and had a profound impact on the development of Mexico well into the modern day. The revolutionary period itself can be split into three distinct stages: First, several factions united behind Francisco Madero in order to overthrow the dictatorial government of Porfirio Diaz. When Madero’s government appeared to maintain the status quo set forth during the Porfiriato period, however, the same forces that brought Madero to power rose up once again to remove him. Finally, the remaining factions, no longer possessing a common goal to unite them, turned on one another in a fight to establish dominance. At the end of this bloody period emerged a new triumvirate: