Modification de The independence of Latin American nations

{{Infobox Lecture
 | image = 
 | image_caption = 
 | cours = [[The United States and Latin America: late 18th and 20th centuries]]
 | faculté = [[Lettres]]
 | département = [[Département d’histoire générale]]
 | professeurs = [[Aline Helg]]
 | enregistrement = 
 | lectures = 
*[[The Americas on the eve of independence]]
*[[The independence of the United States]]
*[[The U.S. Constitution and Early 19th Century Society]]
*[[The Haitian Revolution and its Impact in the Americas]]
*[[The independence of Latin American nations]]
*[[Latin America around 1850: societies, economies, policies]]
*[[The Northern and Southern United States circa 1850: immigration and slavery]]
*[[The American Civil War and Reconstruction: 1861 - 1877]]
*[[The United States: 1877 - 1900]]
*[[Regimes of Order and Progress in Latin America: 1875 - 1910]]
*[[The Mexican Revolution: 1910 - 1940]]
*[[American society in the 1920s]]
*[[The Great Depression and the New Deal: 1929 - 1940]]
*[[From Big Stick Policy to Good Neighbor Policy]]
*[[Coups d'état and Latin American populisms]]
*[[The United States and World War II]]
*[[Latin America during the Second World War]]
*[[US Post-War Society: Cold War and the Society of Plenty]]
*[[The Cold War in Latin America and the Cuban Revolution]]
*[[The Civil Rights Movement in the United States]]
}}

We will see that there are tensions in any society, but at the same time their entry into the revolutionary process is facilitated by an external event that either creates a power vacuum or weakens power. The revolutions of the [[The independence of the United States|United States]] and [[The Haitian Revolution and its Impact in the Americas|Haiti]] would not have occurred without a brutal and profound change in the relationship between colony and metropolis, in one case taxes and in the other the French Revolution.

{{Translations
| fr = Les indépendances des nations d’Amérique latine
| es = Las independencias de las naciones de América Latina
}}

=The external cause=

[https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasions_fran%C3%A7aises_du_Portugal Napoleon's invasion of the Iberian Peninsula] will enable the process of independence of the Americas. The invasion changed the relationship between rulers and governed since [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_VII_of_Spain King Ferdinand VII] was no longer there, when he returned from captivity he was not up to the task, but others will be like Bolivar. In the case of Latin America, the composition of the population weighs in the course of events.

Napoleon's invasion of the Iberian Peninsula in 1808 led first to the independence of Brazil and then of Spanish America.

=The independence of Brazil=

For Brazil, when Napoleon had already invaded Spain, the Prince Regent of Portugal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_VI_of_Portugal Joao VI] embarked with his family, court and administration for Brazil. In all, between 10,000 and 150,000 people set sail on ships under British escort with the archives and treasure.

From 1808 to 1821, the Portuguese Empire was ruled from Rio de Janeiro by Portuguese officials. The conflict between the colony and the metropolis only broke out in 1821 when Joao VI decided to return to Lisbon leaving his son Pedro in charge of Brazil.

Brazil is a huge empire. When he took this decision, the Brazilian elites were very offended to return to the situation before 1808, the elites convinced [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_I_of_Brazil Pedro I] to stay and become the independent emperor of Brazil. In 1822, Pedro I became the emperor of Brazil becoming independent while remaining a slave monarchy, there was no social change.<gallery mode="packed">
Fichier:Autor não identificado - Embarque da Família Real Portuguesa.jpg|The departure of the Portuguese royal family to Brazil. Anonymous painting, early 19th century.
Fichier:Debret-djoãoVI-MHN.jpg|King John VI of Portugal by Jean-Baptiste Debret.
Fichier:DpedroI-brasil-full.jpg|Painting by Simplício Rodrigues de Sá, circa 1830.
Fichier:Fernando de Borbón, príncipe de Asturias.jpg|Ferdinand VII as Prince of Asturias.
</gallery>

=Continental Spanish America: from loyalty to the king to civil war (1810 - 1814)=

Everything is much more complicated in the immense Spanish empire of America, since it is an empire that includes, among others, the Philippines in Asia. Napoleon's invasion led to the abdication of King Ferdinand VII of Spain leaving the colonial power headless.

Initially, after this invasion and the fall of the king, the cities formed local juntas to govern in the name of the king during his absence. For this, they invoked the principle that in the absence of the king, sovereignty rests with the people, but did not question the validity of royal power.[[Image:El_juramento_de_las_Cortes_de_Cádiz_en_1810.jpg|thumb|right|225px|Swearing-in of the Cortes de Cádiz in the parish church of San Fernando. Presentation at the Congress of Deputies of Madrid.]]
 
In America, these juntas bring together the elite of planters and merchants from both the peninsular and Creole regions. In Spain, provincial junta formed a supreme [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortes_of_C%C3%A1diz junta in Cadiz], which was not invaded by Napoleon. It is supposed to supervise the whole empire and coordinate a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsular_War war of liberalization].
 
This supreme junta appoints a regency council as the legitimate government of the imprisoned king. However, it needs the support of the American colonies since they were not occupied by Napoleon. To this end, it recognizes the equality in principle of the American provinces. In 1810, under conditions of war and occupation by the cortes, it hastily convened a national assembly of delegates from the provinces of Spain, the Americas and Asia.

Very soon the question of representation arose, on the basis of population Spain would have fewer delegates than the Americas, which have 16 million inhabitants. It is the council of regency that decides the debate, at the cortes, America will be grossly under-represented with only 1/5 of the members. This will pose a problem of legitimacy for the cortes.

These cortes debate and ratify the political [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1812 constitution of the Spanish monarchy] of 1812, which applies to Spain and its territories in America and Asia. The constitution establishes a parliamentary monarchy with a reduced power of the king in favour of the cortes, decentralising part of the administration and granting suffrage to all adult men without requiring them to be owners or literate.

However, this is an artifice, because suffrage is limited to Spaniards, Indians and mixed-race sons of Spaniards, excluding free people who are descendants of former mixed-race people or not according to the principle of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limpieza_de_sangre limpieza de sangre]. Blacks and mulattoes constitute one third of the population of the Americas.

This is going to be a bad experience in many American provinces, dividing them into those that recognize the cortes and those that do not. There are also provinces that will accept the authority of the Council of Regency, which will even send new governors to neutralize the junta; there too, many provinces will refuse to accept these new governors and will decree that they will continue to govern in the name of the king through their junta.

In these cases they declare the Council of Regency illegitimate, expelling the new governors, and they declare that only they can legitimately govern in the absence of the king. Gradually these junta move from autonomy to the declaration of independence. However, some juntas remained loyal to the regency council.

From 1809 until 1814, there were not really wars of independence in Spanish America, but civil wars within each province between those who wanted to remain loyal to the council of regency and the king and those who wanted autonomy and independence. All these regions are in civil war.

=L’Amérique espagnole continentale : la diversité des processus d’indépendance (1814 - 1824)=

En 1814, lorsque Napoléon abandonne l’Espagne et que Ferdinand VII retrouve le pouvoir, les évènements vont se transformer en de véritables guerres d’indépendances. Ferdinand VII refuse de faire des concessions rejetant la constitution de 1812 et décide de recourir à la force pour reconquérir ses colonies des Amériques en envoyant des troupes.
 
Un processus de reconquête est lancé en recourant à la force et à une répression brutale. Les libres créoles dans ces vice-royautés vont se lancer dans des luttes d’indépendance.

==Mexique==

[[File:Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla.jpg|thumb|200px|Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla.]]

Au Mexique, au début on a une révolte lancée par un curé nommé [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Hidalgo Miguel Hidalgo], blanc né au Mexique qui mobilise contre les exploiteurs espagnols appelé les « gachupines ». Il mobilise des Espagnols, des Indiens et des gens pauvres pour lutter pour un « gouvernement plus juste ».
 
La religion catholique est extrêmement forte. Sur le terrain, très vite les troupes de Hidalgo vont occuper un grand territoire s’attaquant aux haciendas des créoles devenant une guerre de classes que Hidalgo n’arrive pas à contrôler.

[[File:Morelos por autor anónimo.jpg|thumb|Morelos por autor anónimo]]
 
Les élites créoles prennent peur et rejoignent la cause de la couronne espagnole. Hidalgo est arrêté et exécuté. Cependant, [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Morelos Jose Maria Morelos], prêtre et métisse afro-descendant d’origine modeste reprend le flambeau avec un programme d’indépendance politique, d’égalité raciale, de redistribution des terres et notamment d’abolition de l’esclavage. Mais il n’arrive pas à contrôler ses troupes menant à son arrestation et à son exécution.

[[Fichier:Iturbide Emperador by Josephus Arias Huerta.jpg|thumb|left|Augustin I{{er}} du Mexique.]]
 
La guerre civile à l’intérieur du Mexique se poursuit jusqu’en 1821 quand un aristocrate mexicain [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustin_Ier_du_Mexique Augustine De Iturbide] se prononce pour l’indépendance et réussit à forger une alliance entre les partisans de Hidalgo et de Morelos et l’élite créole contre les Espagnols. Une fois l’Espagne vaincue, Iturbide se proclame empereur constitutionnel du Mexique ; c’est une solution monarchie qui ne va durer que deux ans, mais qui va protéger la hiérarchie sociale. Toutefois, cette révolution est restée indépendante.
 
L’Amérique centrale va gagner son indépendance sans combats, car elle dépendait de la vice-royauté de la Nouvelle-Espagne du Mexique.

==Venezuela==

La question socioraciale complique tout. Si on regarde la carte générale des Amériques, le Venezuela est proche d’Haïti et de toutes les Antilles sucrières ayant un poids dans la réflexion des élites.
 
Le Venezuela est une colonie dans laquelle il y a un esclavage plus développé qu’au Mexique avec des esclaves employés principalement dans des plantations de cacao, il y a aussi un très grand nombre de libres de couleur travaillant dans l’artisanat dans les villes. Tout cela fait que l’élite craint une révolution à la haïtienne.
 
Le processus d’indépendance est différent du Mexique. Au tout début, la junte déclare l’indépendance en 1810. Cette déclaration d’indépendance n’enthousiasme pas les classes populaires qui sont mal traitées à travers les élites, l’esclavage et les exploitations. Les Espagnols qui ont encore des troupes arrivent à mobiliser les troupes plantaires non-blanches en dénonçant leur racisme en mobilisant les llaneros, les esclaves des haciendas en leur promettant leur liberté. Les indépendantistes sont rapidement dépassés par les troupes soulevées par l’Espagne.
 
Là aussi, on se trouve dans une situation de guerre civile. On doit à Simon Bolivar qui appartient à l’aristocratie cacaotière est esclavagiste, qui a compris que pour gagner l’indépendance, il faut être soutenu par la majorité de la population qui est pauvre, indienne et d’origine africaines. Il sait aussi que l’Espagne s’il elle gagne ne va pas donner l’égalité aux descendants africains ni abolir l’esclavage comme l’a montrée la constitution de 1812.
 
En 1813, il lance une guerre à mort des américains contre les Espagnols sans distinction de race. Il forme des dignitaires militaires sans distinction raciale promouvant des noirs et des mulâtres promettant la liberté aux esclaves qui combattront pour l’indépendance.
 
Lorsque Ferdinand VII revient sur le trône, Bolivar est contraint de s’enfuir avec de nombreux hommes de ses troupes et officiers se réfugiant à Haïti. Grâce à l’aide d’Alexandre Pétion, Bolívar va pouvoir relancer la guerre et unir la lutte du Venezuela à celle de la Colombie et de l’Équateur et progressivement chasser les Espagnols pour fonder une 1821 une confédération de trois nations nommée la Grande Colombie qui va exister jusqu’en 1831.
 
On a une indépendance déclarée en 1821 avec des régions très différentes unies dans cette Grande Colombie.

==Rio de la Plata (Buenos Aires)==

[[File:Jose de San Martin.jpg|thumb|Unique photographie de José de San Martín.]]

Il faut voir qu’à cette époque vers 1800, Buenos Aires est un petit port seulement élevé au rang de capital de vice-royauté, mais qui a appris à compter sur ses forces en rejetant les Anglais qui l’ont occupé en 1807. Un quart de la population était afro-descendante, une autre partie était formée par des garnisons militaires, des gauchos.
 
L’indépendance est rapidement gagnée en 1816 en Argentine. Cependant, elle est entourée de l’immense Brésil et de toute la vice-royauté du Pérou qui représente une menace ayant peur d’une attaque par le Nord. L’un des principaux dirigeants de ce mouvement [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_de_San_Mart%C3%ADn Jose de San Martin] décide avec d’autres d’apporter l’indépendance à l’arrière-pays d’Argentine, au Chili et jusqu’à la Bolivie et au Pérou.

==Pérou==

Il est intéressant de voir que c’est ainsi que le Pérou va gagner son indépendance prise en tenaille entre les troupes venant du Sud et du Nord. L’indépendance sera imposée sur le Pérou, les élites restent fidèles au roi et à l’Espagne parce qu’elles ont peur des Indiens à l’image de la révolte de [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BApac_Amaru Túpac Amaru].
 
Ce ne sera qu’en 1824 que la [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataille_d’Ayacucho victoire de Ayacucho] apporte l’indépendance et mets fin au colonialisme espagnol.

<gallery mode="packed">
Fichier:TupacamaruI.JPG|Túpac Amaru, le dernier inca de Vilcabamba.
Fichier:Martin Tovar y Tovar 01.JPG|La Bataille d’Ayacucho, de Martín Tovar y Tovar.
</gallery>

=Conséquences=
L’Espagne en 1824 est battue sur le continent américain, mais pas dans les Caraïbes avec Cuba qui va devenir la « perle des Antilles » remplaçant Saint-Domingue comme fournisseur de sucre et Porto Rico qui sera sous domination espagnole jusqu’en 1898.

=General considerations=

It should be remembered that, unlike the Thirteen British Colonies and as in Haiti, it is a very long process of independence in Spanish America. From 1808, if we count the first juntas, or 1810 if we count the first revolutionary independence government, it lasted until 1828. Sixteen years of internal conflicts.

Spain waited until 1836 to recognize the independence of Mexico. One may ask why the conflict took so long:

*it did not involve a war against the metropolis, but a kind of civil war that had a socioracional dimension within each viceroyalty. At the same time, royalists, autonomists and independentists were fighting each other.
*The Spanish colonies, unlike the United States, did not receive any help from other nations except Haiti for Venezuela. On the other hand, the little they had in military aid was bought on credit from England. These nations are coming to independence with a fairly large foreign debt.
 
The costs of the war are not equal everywhere; it is very high in terms of human losses in Venezuela and on the Caribbean coast and Colombia, which have their populations declining; in terms of economic loss, Mexico loses the most, as all its mining infrastructure is destroyed. Argentina is getting out of the situation at a lower cost, which explains the more or less rapid start-ups.

One may wonder whether this is a real revolution:

#we have a more or less massive mobilization of the population;
#a struggle between different ideologies;
#a concrete struggle for power;
#we don't really have a deep transformation of social and economic structures.
 
The wars of independence were fought by white elites, but were fought by coloured troops, often of mixed race, black mulattoes and Indians. They are fought on a dominant ideology of freedom, equality and private property.

After independence, there is a great legal change, but not really a change in the socio-economic structures. Everywhere, republican regimes were adopted except for the Iturbid regime, while the nobility was abolished. All references to race in constitutions, laws and even censuses disappear; except for slaves, everyone is a citizen.

For the free Afro-descendants, it is a victory in the sense that they lose the defilement of slavery and gain equality of rights. For community Indians, it is a tragedy, because in the name of equality they lose their status as minors protected by the King of Spain, who prohibited the sale of their community property; now in the name of private property, their lands become alienable, gradually being taken over by haciendanos and small farmers. Many indigenous communities will disappear.

For most slaves there is no change except in Chile, Central America in 1824 and Mexico in 1829 partly because the Anglo-Saxons colonize northern Mexico and this is a way to stop the colonization of the northern United States.

Everywhere else except for the men who fought in the independence troops there are laws of gradual abolition, slavery will be abolished only in the period 1850 - 1860.

If the principle of equality makes the caste system disappear, the socio-racial hierarchy is not upset. There were new means of social mobility, especially in the army where a few half-breed women could move up the ranks. In fact, if it is no longer the accident of being born white, black or Indian, it is private property and formal education that will do so, but this does not mean that the counters will be set at zero, because racial ancestry will subsequently weigh in. Moreover, these populations will be so poor at the time of their independence that they will not be able to invest in education.

The new governments were not advocating the redistribution of land; it was being redistributed to the best buyers and not to the working classes.

Is there a formation of these different nations?

*Yes, in the sense that founding myths are being created and that the independence movements have mixed the populations of the different regions in the armies, in addition we have the arrival of republican ideas that make us feel that we belong to a given homeland.
*No, because the majority undergoes the process without taking part in it, one is often forcibly enrolled in the armies, moreover local identification remained strong. On the other hand, the borders of the new nations reproduce the same nations as before. The division is virtually the same as that of the viceroyalties in the colonial era, while the capitals of the viceroyalties continue to be the capitals of the independent nations.

=Annexes=

=References=
<references />

[[Category:Aline Helg]]
[[Category:histoire]]
[[Category:relations internationales]]  
[[Category:2011]] 
[[Category:2012]]  
[[Category:2013]]