Latin and Central America in Revolt

Kukulkan

Pyramid of Kukulkan (Quetzalcoatl, the feathered serpent god) at Chich'en Itza, Mexico; photo credit: Edit Grof Tisza

blue bar

Most of the countries of Central and Latin America and the Caribbean achieved their independence from Spain in the early nineteenth century. In these notes, I will comment on the Mexican Revolution of 1910-22, but first I'll cover just a bit about the original Latin American revolutions with some focus on Simón Bolívar aka El Libertador (1783-1830) and José de San Martin aka El Libertador de Argentina, Chile y Perú (1778-1850), two of the world's great revolutionaries.

Here are the present-day countries of Central America.

And these are most of the countries of the Caribbean.

I list the countries of Latin America on the page for Latin American modernization.

So, why the revolts?

Let's try and simplify.

1. Long term problems in Spain - Spain had been perhaps the preeminent power in Europe (and the world) in the seventeenth century. You might even be tempted to call it a Siglo de Oro. But When Charles II (1661-1700) died childless, Spain faced a succession crisis that was resolved in over a decade of bloody European warfare in the War of Spanish Succession (1701-1714). The outcome was that the French Bourbon family (Louis XIV's grandson) held the throne of Spain.

2. Colonial administration issues - The new Bourbon rulers of Spain after the war ended in 1714 attempted a more centralized rule of the empire, weakening on-site colonial administration and increasing the military presence in the colonies. There followed repeated efforts to make the colonial administration more effective to allow for point 3.

3. Increased Spanish extraction of resources from the empire - As if this could be increased after the amount of wealth that had already been sent back to Spain since 1500, but as worldwide prosperity grew in the eighteenth century with the growth of trade everywhere, there was an increased demand for silver which Spain sought to capitalize on. Silver production in the Spanish new world increased about four times in the century. The Latin American population also rebounded in the century which put increased pressure on arable land supplies for the lower classes.

4. Racial, ethnic and social issues - Latin America was truly a multicultural society. I've seen figures that the white population numbered only about three million out of seventeen million in the Spanish territory. Below the whites was a mixed population of mestizos and mulattoes, followed by Indians, and then finally Black slaves. The complex caste set-up varied from area to area. In many cases, it was the fear of racial conflict that united the white minority. On the flip side, the main challenge for non-whites was the inability to unify.

4. Impact of the Enlightenment and then the American, French and Haitian revolutions - On the one hand, these inspired the white upper class to seek independence from Spain, but on the other hand, the Haitian revolt also warned elites of the dangers of a social revolution. It would be a fine line to walk in any revolt.

5. Unrest in Spain (discussed below)

6. Charismatic individuals to lead any revolt (discussed next)

The two main Latin American revolutionaries

Bolívar was from a wealthy Venezuelan family and had studied in Europe. He returned to Venezuela in 1807 and soon was a leading figure in the revolt against Spain.

San Martin was from a Spanish family in Argentina and also had studied in Europe and served in the Spanish army. In 1812 he returned to Argentina where he soon became one of the leaders of the revolt there.

Let's set the stage for the South American revolts. The intellectual inspiration for revolution came from the examples of the American Revolution (1776), the French Revolution (1789) and the Haitian Revolution (1791), but the immediate impetus for revolution came as a result of events in Spain and were tied to the actions of Napoleon. In 1808 Napoleon installed his brother Joseph-Napoléon Bonaparte (1768-1844) as king of Spain. This proved to be a particularly bad move on the part of Napoleon, and the Spanish revolted. Napoleon thought it was no big deal and sent his army into Spain to put down the revolt, but the French army got bogged down in the Peninsular War, a lengthy and protracted guerrilla war that the French were unable to win.

With the political situation in Spain unclear, some in Latin America seized the opportunity. In Caracas, Venezuela, a Junta Suprema de Caracas appeared and attempted to seize control in Venezuela in 1810. When Fernando VII (1784-1833) was restored to power as king in Spain in 1813, he tore up the previous constitution of 1812. That indicated that the king intended to assert his royal control of the Spanish empire. But in the meantime, a rebel army led by Bolivar had already retaken Caracas. Further south, dock workers in Buenos Aires had revolted, and San Martin had assumed control of the rebel army. San Martin intended to march on Lima, Peru, which at that time was really the centerpiece of Spain’s empire in the new world. San Martin, expanded his forces, marched through Chile and reached Lima in 1821, declaring Peru independent.

Meanwhile, Bolivar had also been marching from Venezuela to Peru, but he had gotten delayed in Colombia. In 1822, after Bolivar had finally begun moving toward Peru, San Martin and Bolivar, the two great revolutionaries, met in Guayaquil, Ecuador on 26 July 1822 to discuss future plans for South America. A long day of discussion resulted in no agreement. San Martin retired and lived out his days in Europe. Bolivar remained in Peru, fighting royalist opposition, and in 1825 became Peru’s dictator. Bolivar's attempt to establish a federation of independent states (Gran Colombia) with himself as leader failed because of in-fighting, and in 1830 he retired and died shortly afterward. Bolivar's dream of a united South American federation of republics shattered into pieces.

San Martín is regarded as a national hero and liberator of Argentina, Chile and Peru. Bolivar is regarded as a national hero and liberator of Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia.

A Mexican Revolution, 1910-1920?

Many scholars question the nature of the turmoil of these ten years in Mexico and just how revolutionary the revolution actually was, or even if it was a revolution. It's a complicated period of history to interpret.

After independence from Spain was achieved in 1821, Mexican politics for the remainder of the century were characterized by chaos, frequent presidential changes, and even intervention from France in the guise of Emperor Maximilian I (1832-1867).

A semblance of stability was achieved in the country during the 31-year-long presidency of general Porfirio Díaz (1830-1915). Under Diaz, a handful of powerful families and their agents controlled economic and political power in the provinces, and an increasingly rich oligarchy benefited from access to foreign capital. But the lack of a clear succession to Diaz' presidency caused a crisis in 1910. This was the immediate pretext that unleashed two revolutionary forces.

Revolutionary force 1 was a growing middle class and elite which had profited economically in the years of the Diaz presidency but which still lacked political power. The key figure was Francisco Madero (1873-1913), a rich northern landowner and businessman who lost the 1910 election to Diaz but who did not slink away into oblivion. Instead, on 20 November 1910, Madero called upon the Mexican people to rise in arms. Surprisingly, a year later, after the revolt and new elections, Madero became president.

Revolutionary force 2 was a second powerful group, the illiterate rural poor, Indians and mestizos who provided the labor backbone of the economy but who had not benefited from economic progress. The key figures involved were Emiliano Zapata (1879-1919) and Francisco "Pancho" Villa (1878-1923). The call to arms in 1910 unleashed these people as a rebel force.

Under President Madero, violence and chaos continued in the country as reform did not move fast enough for the rural poor while it moved too fast for the Diaz' regime's oligarchy. Madero and his vice president were finally overthrown by the army and assassinated in February 1913.

The establishment of an authoritarian military regime under General Victoriano Huerta (1850-1916)--a regime supported by the United States--only served to further ignite popular rebellion. Huerta was forced out in July 1914.

Mexico plunged into a civil war. Zapata and Villa roamed the countryside in the south and north with their forces. There were also many other revolutionary bands besides those of the two famed leaders, as the countryside disintegrated into anarchy.

The re-establishment of order required subduing the Mexican countryside and that was accomplished by years of struggle led by Venustiano Carranza (1859-1920), a wealthy landowner and constitutional reformer, and general Álvaro Obregón (1880-1928). As the rebel guerrillas were subdued, Carranza secured power in Mexico. With the new revolutionary constitution of 1917, Carranza served as president from 1917 to 1920 (with U.S. recognition).

But the transition of presidential power were still not completely smooth. Obregón revolted against Carranza in 1920 and served as president from 1920 to 1924. After Obregón's election in 1928, he was assassinated by a Roman Catholic who hated the government's anti-church policies.

To recap,

Legacies, or what to make of the Mexican Revolution?

Well, it's a bit easy to say, but all of the principle figures involved in the revolution (Madero, Zapata, Villa, Carranza, Obregón) died a violent death.

Mexico emerged with a new constitution as the basis for a constitutional republic. The 1917 Constitution gave much power to the central government.

The years of revolution and the new constitution did not really benefit the rural poor despite an agrarian reform that was eventually carried out but which, in reverse, probably further impoverished the rural population.

While I did not write much about this, the United States intervened several times in the Mexican Revolution, mostly to protect commercial interests.

There is still disagreement about when exactly the Mexican Revolution ended as there were still outbreaks of violence through the 1920s and 1930s.

Finally, Mexico became a one-party state. Decades of one-part rule by the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), founded in 1929, continued until 2000. The party managed presidential succession and the political process.

blue bar

Some recommended online resources