The independence of Latin American nations

Données clés
Faculté	Lettres
Département	Département d’histoire générale
Professeur(s)	Aline Helg^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]
Cours	The United States and Latin America: late 18th and 20th centuries

Lectures

The independence of Latin American nations was a complex process that was influenced by a variety of factors, including internal tensions within society, as well as external events such as the American and Haitian revolutions. The weakening or breakdown of the relationship between colonies and their European metropoles played a significant role in facilitating these independence movements.

The French Revolution had a significant impact on the independence movements in Latin America. The ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity that were central to the French Revolution resonated with many Latin American elites and intellectuals, who sought to establish similar values in their own countries. The French Revolution also weakened the power of the European colonial powers, as they were preoccupied with their own internal struggles, which created an opportunity for the colonies to assert their own independence. Additionally, the French Revolution led to the spread of revolutionary ideas and movements throughout the world, which also contributed to the emergence of the Latin American independence movements.

Languages

Español Français

The external cause

The invasion of the Iberian Peninsula by Napoleon in the early 19th century played a significant role in the independence of Latin American nations. The absence of a strong central authority in Spain and Portugal allowed for local leaders, such as Simon Bolivar, to rise up and claim independence for their respective countries.

The invasion by Napoleon in 1808 and the subsequent absence of King Ferdinand VII disrupted the traditional power dynamic between rulers and the governed in the Spanish colonies, , which led to the Peninsular War,. With the king unable to effectively govern, local leaders such as Simon Bolivar were able to step in and assert their own authority, eventually leading to the independence of their respective countries. Additionally, the weakness of the Spanish government during this time provided an opportunity for these leaders to gain support and mobilize their populations towards independence. In Brazil, the Portuguese royal family and their court fled to the colony in 1808, which helped to strengthen Brazilian identity and contributed to the country's eventual independence in 1822.

The demographic makeup of the colonies also played a significant role in the independence movements of Latin American nations. The large indigenous population and significant number of enslaved people were often oppressed and treated as second-class citizens by the Spanish and Portuguese colonizers. This led to discontent and ultimately, movements for independence from colonial rule. Additionally, the Enlightenment ideals of freedom and self-government also influenced the independence movements in Latin America.

The independence of Brazil

The independence of Brazil was set in motion in 1808 when Napoleon had already invaded Spain, the Prince Regent of Portugal Joao VI embarked with his family, court and administration for Brazil in an event known as the "Transfer of the Portuguese Court" in which between 10,000 and 150,000 people set sail on ships under British escort with the archives and treasure. This was done as the Prince Regent of Portugal, Joao VI, feared that the French would invade Portugal and wanted to protect the royal family, government officials, and the country's wealth. The arrival of the court in Brazil had a significant impact on the colony, as it led to an increase in trade and economic activity, and also marked the beginning of a period of autonomy for Brazil. In 1822, Prince Pedro, the son of the Prince Regent, declared Brazil's independence from Portugal, and he was subsequently crowned as the first emperor of Brazil.

From 1808 to 1821, the Portuguese Empire was ruled from Rio de Janeiro, where the royal court and government officials had relocated during the Napoleonic Wars. During this period, Brazil experienced significant economic and cultural growth, and the colony's elite began to develop a sense of autonomy. However, the relationship between the colony and the metropolis remained relatively peaceful until 1821, when King Joao VI decided to return to Lisbon and leave his son, Pedro, as the regent of Brazil. This decision caused tension between the Brazilian elite, who wanted to maintain their autonomy, and the Portuguese officials, who wanted to reassert control over the colony. This ultimately led to the declaration of Brazil's independence in 1822, with Pedro being declared as the first Emperor of Brazil.

The Brazilian elites were offended by the idea of returning to the situation before 1808, and they convinced Pedro I to stay in Brazil and become the independent emperor of the country. In 1822, Pedro I declared the independence of Brazil from Portugal and became the first emperor of the newly formed empire. However, Brazil remained a slave monarchy, and there was no social change. That is correct, slavery was still legal in Brazil and remained so until 1888. Despite the declaration of independence, the social and economic structure of the colony remained largely unchanged, with the elite continuing to hold power and the majority of the population, including enslaved Africans, remaining marginalized. The abolition of slavery would come later, in 1888, after a long and complex process.

The departure of the Portuguese royal family to Brazil. Anonymous painting, early 19th century.
King John VI of Portugal by Jean-Baptiste Debret.
Painting by Simplício Rodrigues de Sá, circa 1830.
Ferdinand VII as Prince of Asturias.

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

In 1810, the Spanish colonies in America began to experience a wave of revolutionary movements, as local leaders sought to take advantage of the power vacuum left by the absence of a strong central government. These movements were initially focused on maintaining loyalty to the Spanish king and preserving the existing colonial system, but as the war between Spain and France dragged on, many leaders began to call for greater autonomy and independence from Spanish rule.

By 1814, the situation had devolved into open civil war, as different factions fought for control of the various colonies. Some sought to establish independent republics, while others sought to restore loyalty to the Spanish king or create new empires. The wars of independence led to the dissolution of Spanish Empire in America and emergence of various independent states.

Initially, after the fall of King Ferdinand VII, the cities in the Spanish colonies in America formed local juntas, or councils, to govern in his name during his absence. 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. They believed that the king would return and reassume control, so they were trying to maintain order and stability until that time. However, as the war between Spain and France dragged on and it became clear that the king would not return anytime soon, many of these local leaders began to demand greater autonomy and independence from Spanish rule. This led to the emergence of various revolutionary movements and eventually the wars of independence.

Swearing-in of the Cortes de Cádiz in the parish church of San Fernando. Presentation at the Congress of Deputies of Madrid.

The local juntas in the Spanish colonies in America were primarily composed of the elite of planters and merchants, both from the peninsular regions (people from Spain who had settled in the colonies) and Creole regions (people of Spanish descent born in the colonies). These juntas were formed to govern in the name of the king and maintain order until his return.

In Spain, a similar process occurred, with provincial juntas forming a Supreme Central Junta in Cadiz. This junta was intended to serve as a central governing body for the entire Spanish empire, including the colonies in America, and coordinate a war of liberation against Napoleon. The Junta in Cadiz was not invaded by Napoleon, so it considered itself as the legitimate government of Spain and its empire. However, the distance, lack of communication and the different interests between the Junta in Cadiz and the American Juntas made difficult to coordinate the war of liberation.

The Supreme Central Junta in Cadiz appointed a Regency Council as the legitimate government of the imprisoned King Ferdinand VII and sought to gain the support of the American colonies in their war against Napoleon. To this end, they recognized the principle of equality among the American provinces and sought to involve them in the government of the empire.

In 1810, under conditions of war and occupation by the French, the Supreme Central Junta hastily convened a National Assembly of delegates from the provinces of Spain, the Americas and Asia. This assembly was intended to represent the entire empire and provide a forum for the provinces to participate in the governance of the empire and coordinate the war of liberation. However, the National assembly was short-lived, and it was difficult to implement its decisions due to the distance and communication difficulties with the American colonies. Additionally, the American colonies had already started to develop their own movements for independence and self-government, which made it difficult for the Supreme Central Junta in Cadiz to maintain control over them.

The question of representation in the National Assembly quickly became a major issue, as it became clear that, based on population, Spain would have fewer delegates than the American colonies, which had a population of around 16 million. The Regency Council ultimately decided the debate, and at the Cortes, the American colonies were severely under-represented, with only 1/5 of the members. This decision posed a problem of legitimacy for the Cortes, as it was seen by many in the American colonies as a denial of their right to equal representation and self-government.

This lack of representation and the growing desire for self-rule in America led to the emergence of various revolutionary movements in the colonies. These movements, which were led by Creole elites, began to call for greater autonomy and eventually for full independence from Spain.

This underrepresentation of American colonies in the Cortes, and the subsequent lack of attention to their interests, was one of the key factors that led to the Wars of Independence in America.

The Cortes, which were convened by the Regency Council, did debate and ratify the Political Constitution of the Spanish Monarchy of 1812. This constitution applied to Spain and its territories in America and Asia, and it was intended to modernize and liberalize the government of the empire. The constitution established a parliamentary monarchy, with a reduced power of the king in favor of the Cortes, and it aimed to decentralize part of the administration and grant suffrage to all adult men without requiring them to be property owners or literate.

The Constitution of 1812 was a significant document in the history of Spain, as it attempted to grant greater political rights and representation to the people. However, it was not well received in America, where the colonies were not represented in the Cortes, and it was seen as a continuation of the same policies that had led to the Wars of Independence. Additionally, the Constitution was not implemented in the American colonies, as the revolutionary movements were already in motion and it was too late for it to have any meaningful impact on the situation.

The Constitution of 1812 did grant suffrage to all adult men, but it was limited to Spaniards, Indians, and mixed-race sons of Spaniards. This effectively excluded free people of African descent, known as Afro-Latin Americans, as well as people of mixed-race who did not conform to the principle of limpieza de sangre, which required that a person's ancestry be pure Spanish.

This exclusion of Afro-Latin Americans from political rights and representation was a major flaw in the Constitution of 1812, as they made up a significant portion of the population of the American colonies. It reinforced the already existing racial hierarchy and discrimination against people of color in the Spanish Empire, further marginalizing them and denying them equal rights and opportunities.

This exclusion of a significant portion of the population from political rights and representation was one of the factors that contributed to the Wars of Independence in America, as many people of color fought alongside the Creole elites for their rights and freedom.

The implementation of the Constitution of 1812 and the actions of the Regency Council were not well received in many of the American provinces, and it caused a division among them. Some provinces recognized the authority of the Cortes and the Regency Council, while others did not.

In some provinces, the Regency Council appointed new governors to neutralize the existing juntas, but many of these governors were not accepted by the local populations, and the juntas refused to recognize their authority. This led to a power struggle between the appointed governors and the existing juntas, with many provinces continuing to govern in the name of the king through their juntas.

This lack of acceptance and the division among the American provinces made it difficult for the Regency Council to maintain control over the colonies and further weaken their authority. It also hindered the efforts of the Regency Council to coordinate the war of liberation against Napoleon, as many provinces were focused on their own internal conflicts.

Additionally, this division and the lack of a unified effort among the American provinces, made it easier for the revolutionary movements to gain support and momentum, ultimately leading to the Wars of Independence in America.

In some cases, the local juntas declared the Regency Council illegitimate, expelling the new governors appointed by it, and they declared that only they had the authority to govern in the absence of the king. These juntas gradually moved from seeking autonomy to declaring independence.

However, not all juntas took this path, some remained loyal to the Regency Council, and recognized its authority. These loyal juntas were often led by conservative elites, who saw the Regency Council as the legitimate government of Spain and the best hope for restoring order and stability to the empire.

This division among the juntas further weakened the authority of the Regency Council and made it difficult for it to maintain control over the colonies. It also created a situation in which some provinces were moving towards independence, while others were still loyal to the empire, leading to a complex and confusing situation.

The declaration of independence by some of the American provinces was a gradual process, and it was not universally accepted by the population, it was a result of the complex political, economic and social situation in America, and the different interests of the Creole elites.

From 1809 until 1814, there were not truly wars of independence in Spanish America, but rather civil wars within each province between those who wanted to remain loyal to the Regency Council and the king and those who wanted autonomy and independence. The situation in the colonies was highly complex and varied depending on the region, with some provinces remaining loyal to the empire, while others moved towards autonomy and independence.

These civil wars were often brutal and resulted in significant loss of life and destruction of property. They were also characterized by shifting alliances and betrayals, as different groups and factions fought for control of the provinces.

The Wars of Independence in America were not a single unified effort, but rather a series of conflicts that occurred in different regions and at different times. The end of the Napoleonic Wars and the return of King Ferdinand VII to the throne in 1814, led to the end of these civil wars, and the emergence of various independent states in America. However, the wars of independence in Spanish America continued in some regions until 1825.

Continental Spanish America: the diversity of independence processes (1814 - 1824)

In 1814, with the fall of Napoleon and the return of King Ferdinand VII to the Spanish throne, the colonies in Latin America faced a difficult decision. Ferdinand rejected the liberal 1812 Constitution that had been established during his absence, and instead sought to reassert absolutist rule over the colonies. This decision, along with a series of economic and political grievances, sparked a wave of independence movements throughout Latin America. The colonies, led by Creole elites, began to resist Spanish rule and fight for their freedom. These struggles for independence were long and bloody, with many battles and atrocities committed on both sides. Ultimately, most of the colonies were able to gain their independence by 1824, although the process of nation-building and creating stable governments was far from over.

In response to the independence movements, King Ferdinand VII launched a process of reconquest in which he sent troops to the colonies to reassert Spanish control. This process was characterized by the use of force and brutal repression, as Spanish forces sought to crush the rebellion and maintain their hold on the colonies. The Creole elites and other independence leaders who led the resistance faced severe repression, including imprisonment, execution, and exile. However, the resistance continued, driven by a desire for freedom and self-determination. The independence struggles were long and difficult, with many battles and sacrifices along the way, but eventually most of the colonies were able to achieve independence by 1824.

Mexico

Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla.

In Mexico, the independence movement was sparked by Father Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla. Hidalgo, a white man born in Mexico, was a priest who became deeply frustrated with the harsh treatment of the Mexican people by the Spanish government and the "gachupines" (Spanish-born elites who held power in Mexico). In 1810, he launched a rebellion against the Spanish, calling on Mexicans of all races and social classes to join him in the fight for a fairer government. Hidalgo's rebellion was initially successful, but eventually was defeated by the Spanish army. Hidalgo was captured, tried and executed in 1811. However, his rebellion sparked a war for independence that would continue for another 11 years under the leadership of other figures, like José María Morelos and Vicente Guerrero, and ultimately Mexico achieved its independence from Spain in 1821.

The Catholic religion was indeed very strong in Mexico, and played a major role in the country's social and political life. Hidalgo's rebellion, however, was not primarily motivated by religious reasons but rather by a desire for political and economic change. He called for the end of Spanish rule and the creation of a fairer government. However, the rebellion quickly took on a class character, as Hidalgo's troops targeted the haciendas of the Creole elites and other wealthy landowners. This class struggle, which Hidalgo may not have intended, made it difficult for him to maintain control over the rebellion and led to divisions within his forces. Despite this, the rebellion managed to control a large territory in Mexico, but eventually was defeated by the Spanish army and Hidalgo was captured and executed. The struggle for independence continued under other leaders.

Morelos por autor anónimo

After the initial success of Hidalgo's rebellion, many of the Creole elites became fearful of the social and economic upheaval caused by the rebellion, and chose to side with the Spanish crown. Hidalgo was eventually captured and executed by the Spanish army. However, the struggle for independence continued under the leadership of José María Morelos. Morelos, an Afro-descendant priest of mixed heritage and modest origins, took up the torch of the rebellion and developed a more comprehensive program for political independence, racial equality, land redistribution, and in particular, the abolition of slavery. He managed to gain control of a significant part of the country but faced difficulties in maintaining control of his troops. Eventually, Morelos was captured and executed by the Spanish in 1815. Despite the execution of Morelos, the war for independence continued under the leadership of other figures like Vicente Guerrero, and ultimately Mexico achieved its independence in 1821.

Augustin I^er of Mexico.

After the execution of Morelos, the war for independence in Mexico continued with various leaders and shifting alliances. Eventually, in 1821, a Mexican aristocrat named Agustín de Iturbide declared independence and succeeded in forging an alliance between the supporters of Hidalgo, Morelos and the Creole elite against the Spanish. With this alliance, Iturbide was able to defeat the Spanish army and gain independence for Mexico. After the defeat of Spain, Iturbide proclaimed himself as the constitutional emperor of Mexico. This solution lasted for only two years, and was intended to protect the existing social hierarchy. However, the revolution ultimately resulted in the creation of an independent Mexico, although the nation-building process and the creation of a stable government still had a long way to go.

Central America, which consisted of present-day countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Costa Rica, was part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain, which was based in Mexico City. As Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1821, the viceroyalty was dissolved and Central America became a separate entity. However, Central America did not fight for its independence as it came as a result of the administrative and political changes in Mexico after its separation from Spain. Central America formally declared its independence in 1823, with the Act of Independence of Central America, which established a federal republic composed of the five aforementioned countries. This was an important step to the formation of a new nation, but it was not a war of independence like in most of the other countries in Latin America.

Venezuela

In Venezuela, the independence movement was led by wealthy Creole elites who sought greater autonomy and political power. However, the issue of race and social inequality complicated the movement, as the population of Venezuela was diverse, with large numbers of enslaved Africans and indigenous peoples. The Creole elites were influenced by the example of Haiti, which had successfully achieved independence from France through a slave rebellion, and the other sugar West Indies, which had also experienced slave revolts. This led to a tension between the elites, who sought independence for their own benefit, and the lower classes, who sought freedom and equality for all. This tension would continue to shape the country's political and social development even after gaining independence in 1821.

Venezuela, being a colony with a significant population of enslaved Africans, the issue of slavery added complexity to the independence movement. In Venezuela, slavery was more developed than in Mexico, with slaves primarily employed on cocoa plantations. Additionally, there was a large number of freedmen of color working in handicrafts in the cities, who were not considered equal to the white Creole elites. The presence of a large enslaved population and the fear of a Haitian-style revolution, where the enslaved population would rise up against their masters, made the Creole elite hesitant to fully support the movement. They were more inclined to seek greater autonomy within the Spanish empire rather than full independence, which would mean loss of control over the enslaved population and potential social upheaval. This fear of a slave rebellion would continue to shape the country's political and social development, even after gaining independence in 1821.

The independence process in Venezuela was different from that of Mexico. At the very beginning of the movement, a junta declared independence in 1810, but this declaration did not excite the popular classes who were treated badly by the elites, and were subject to slavery and exploitation. The Spanish, who still had troops in the region, managed to mobilize non-white plantation troops by denouncing the racism of the Creole elites, and by promising freedom to the enslaved population, including the llaneros (cowboys) of the haciendas. This led to a split among the independence forces, with the Creole elites and their troops facing off against those raised by Spain. As a result, the independentists were quickly overtaken by the troops raised by Spain, and the war for independence continued for another decade, under the leadership of other figures like Simon Bolivar and Francisco de Paula Santander. Eventually, Venezuela would gain its independence in 1821, along with the other territories of Gran Colombia, but the process of nation-building and creating stable governments was far from over.

In Venezuela, as in many other Latin American countries, the struggle for independence was marked by civil war and internal divisions. One of the key figures in the war for independence was Simon Bolivar, a member of the cocoa aristocracy and a slave trader, who recognized that in order to win independence, he needed the support of the majority of the population who were poor, indigenous and of African descent. He understood that if Spain were to win, they would not grant equality to people of African descent nor would they abolish slavery, as was evident from the 1812 Constitution. Bolivar, therefore, formed alliances with people of different ethnic and social backgrounds and promised them equality and freedom. He also abolished slavery in Venezuela, which helped him to gain the support of the enslaved population. Through his leadership and military strategies, Bolivar and his army were able to defeat the Spanish army and gain independence for Venezuela and other territories of Gran Colombia.

In 1813, Simon Bolivar launched a war against the Spanish, and he declared it as a "War to the death of the Americans" without distinction of race. He understood that in order to defeat the Spanish, he needed to unite all the people of Venezuela, regardless of their race or social class. To achieve this, he trained military leaders without discrimination and promoted black and mulatto officers, and promised freedom to slaves who fought for independence. This policy helped him to gain the support of the enslaved population, who joined his army in large numbers. Bolivar's strategy was key to the success of the Venezuelan War of Independence. He led his troops to several decisive victories against the Spanish and ultimately helped Venezuela to achieve its independence in 1821, along with other territories of Gran Colombia.

When King Ferdinand VII returned to the throne in Spain, he rejected the 1812 Constitution and sought to reassert absolutist rule over the colonies. This led to a renewed effort by the Spanish to reconquer their colonies in Latin America. Bolivar, who had led the struggle for independence in Venezuela, was forced to flee with many of his troops and officers, taking refuge in Haiti. With the help of Haitian President Alexandre Pétion, Bolivar was able to restart the war and unite the struggle of Venezuela with that of Colombia and Ecuador. With this unified effort, Bolivar was able to gradually drive out the Spanish and establish a confederation of three nations called Gran Colombia, which existed until 1831.

The independence of Gran Colombia, a confederation of present-day Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, and Panama, was declared in 1821. The process of gaining independence was a long and difficult one, marked by internal divisions and civil war. The territories of Gran Colombia were very different from each other, with diverse ethnic, linguistic and cultural backgrounds. However, under the leadership of Simon Bolivar and other leaders, these regions were able to unite in their struggle for independence from Spain and form a single nation. The formation of Gran Colombia was an important step in the process of nation-building, but it was also a fragile alliance that would face many challenges in the following years, and it ultimately dissolved in 1831.

Rio de la Plata (Buenos Aires)

The only photograph of José de San Martín.

In the early 19th century, Buenos Aires was a small port city that had only recently been elevated to the rank of capital of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. The city had a diverse population, including Afro-descendants, military garrisons, and gauchos (cowboys). In 1807, Buenos Aires was occupied by the British, but the city's inhabitants were able to drive out the invaders and maintain their autonomy. This experience of resistance and self-reliance would be important in the struggle for independence that followed.

In 1810, Buenos Aires declared its independence from Spain, but the city's struggle for independence was complicated by internal divisions and the presence of royalist forces in other parts of the viceroyalty. Despite these challenges, Buenos Aires and the surrounding provinces were eventually able to gain their independence in 1816 and formed the United Provinces of Central America, which would later become the Republic of Argentina.

Independence was quickly won in 1816 in Argentina, but the country was surrounded by the vast territories of Brazil and the Viceroyalty of Peru, which posed a potential threat of attack from the north. To address this concern, one of the main leaders of the independence movement, José de San Martín, and his allies decided to bring the struggle for independence to the hinterland of Argentina, Chile, and even further to Bolivia and Peru. San Martín and his troops fought several battles and ultimately succeeded in liberating Chile in 1818, and Peru in 1821. San Martín's efforts were crucial in the process of nation-building and the formation of independent states in South America.

Peru

Peru gained its independence in a unique way, caught between the troops coming from the south led by José de San Martín and the north led by Simon Bolivar. The struggle for independence in Peru was complicated by the fact that the elites remained loyal to the Spanish king and to Spain, as they were afraid of the indigenous population and potential revolts like the one led by Túpac Amaru II in the 18th century. The elites were also concerned about losing their power and privilege in the event of independence. However, the combined forces of San Martín and Bolívar were able to defeat the Spanish army in Peru and imposed independence on the country. Despite the resistance from the elites, Peru officially declared its independence in 1821 and became a republic.

Peru officially declared its independence in 1821, but it was not until the Battle of Ayacucho in 1824 that Spanish colonialism in the region came to an end. The Battle of Ayacucho was fought between the combined forces of Simon Bolivar and Antonio José de Sucre, and the Spanish army led by General José de Canterac. The Battle was a decisive victory for the independence forces, and it marked the end of the Spanish presence in South America. This battle was considered as the final battle of the wars for independence of Spanish America. After the battle, the Spanish Empire lost control over all of its territories in South America and the territories became independent countries.

Túpac Amaru, the last Inca of Vilcabamba.
The Battle of Ayacucho, by Martín Tovar y Tovar.

Consequences of the independence processes

The wars of independence in Continental Spanish America, which lasted from 1814 to 1824, had significant consequences for both Spain and the newly independent nations. Spain was defeated on the American continent, but it was not able to hold onto its colonies in the Caribbean. Cuba and Puerto Rico remained under Spanish control for several more decades. Cuba, known as the "pearl of the West Indies," replaced Santo Domingo as the main supplier of sugar, while Puerto Rico remained an important Spanish colony until 1898. The loss of these territories marked the end of Spain's empire in the Americas, and the beginning of a new era for the newly independent nations.

On the other hand, the newly independent countries faced the challenge of nation-building and creating stable governments. The process of creating new nations was not easy, as the territories had diverse ethnic, linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Additionally, the social and economic structures of these countries were deeply affected by the legacy of colonialism and slavery. The newly independent countries had to deal with these challenges and work towards building a new identity and a sense of nationhood.

General considerations

The process of gaining independence in Spanish America was different from that of the Thirteen British Colonies and Haiti. The wars of independence in Spanish America lasted much longer, spanning from 1808, when the first juntas were formed, to 1828. This period of 16 years was marked by internal conflicts and civil wars, as different regions and groups fought for independence, and struggled to establish new governments and nation-states. The process of gaining independence was also complicated by the diversity of the territories, with different ethnic, linguistic and cultural backgrounds, and by the presence of a large enslaved population.

In addition to the military struggles, the process of nation-building was complex and ongoing, as the newly independent countries had to work towards creating a sense of national identity, and building stable governments that would serve the diverse population. It was a long and difficult process, but one that ultimately led to the formation of new nation-states in Latin America.

The process of gaining independence in Spanish America took a long time for several reasons. One of the main reasons is that it was not a war against the metropolis, but rather a kind of civil war with a socio-racial dimension within each viceroyalty. There were multiple factions fighting for different goals, such as royalists, autonomists, and independentists, which made it difficult for any one group to gain a clear victory.

Another reason is that the Spanish colonies, unlike the United States, did not receive any help from other nations except for Venezuela, which received some support from Haiti. The colonies also had limited military aid and had to rely on credit from England to fund their wars of independence, which left the newly independent countries with a significant foreign debt.

Additionally, Spain was not willing to give up its colonies easily, and it was not until 1836 that it officially recognized the independence of Mexico. All these factors contributed to the prolonged struggle for independence in Spanish America.

The costs of the wars of independence in Spanish America were not equal across all the territories. In terms of human losses, Venezuela and the Caribbean coast, as well as Colombia, suffered greatly, with their populations declining significantly. These regions also had a high number of enslaved people, many of whom joined the struggle for independence and were caught in the crossfire of the war.

In terms of economic loss, Mexico was among the hardest hit, as much of its mining infrastructure was destroyed during the war. This had a significant impact on the country's economy and hindered its ability to quickly recover after independence.

On the other hand, Argentina was able to achieve independence at a lower cost, which explains the more rapid start-ups after the war. This region was more agriculturally based, which limited the damage to the infrastructure and allowed for a more stable economic recovery. Additionally, Argentina had a relatively small enslaved population, which also contributed to the lower costs of the war.

The wars of independence in Spanish America can be considered a "real revolution" based on several factors:

there was a more or less massive mobilization of the population, as different groups, including enslaved people, joined the struggle for independence.
there was a struggle between different ideologies, with royalists, autonomists, and independentists each fighting for different goals. Thirdly, there was a concrete struggle for power, as different factions fought for control of the territories.
there was a concrete struggle for power, as different factions fought for control of the territories.
However, it could be argued that there was not a deep transformation of social and economic structures in most of these countries. The newly independent countries inherited many of the social and economic structures of the Spanish colonial system, including the presence of a large enslaved population and a strong racial hierarchy, which persisted even after the wars of independence. Additionally, the elites who held power before and after the wars of independence remained largely unchanged. These factors, among others, have led to a continuity of social and economic inequalities in many of these countries and to some extent, limited the scope of the revolution.

The wars of independence in Spanish America were primarily fought by white elites, but they were also fought by troops of color, often of mixed race, black mulattoes, and indigenous people. These troops were motivated by the dominant ideology of the time, which emphasized freedom, equality, and private property. The elites who led the struggle for independence promised these ideals to the lower classes in order to gain their support. However, the reality of the newly independent countries often did not match these ideals, as the social and economic structures of the colonial period persisted, and the rights and opportunities for marginalized groups were limited. Despite this, the participation of troops of color in the wars of independence was a significant factor in the eventual success of the movement.

newly independent countries adopted republican regimes, except for Mexico which was under the Iturbide regime. The nobility was abolished, and all references to race in constitutions, laws, and censuses were removed. However, despite these legal changes, there was not a significant change in the socio-economic structures of these countries. The social and economic structures of the colonial period persisted, and the rights and opportunities for marginalized groups were limited.

Slavery was abolished in most countries, but the abolition of slavery did not bring an end to racism and discrimination. Moreover, the abolition of slavery did not bring about a change in the socio-economic structures, and the former enslaved population faced great difficulties to access the rights and opportunities of the new citizens.

In sum, the wars of independence brought about a significant change in the legal and political structures of Spanish America, but not a deep change in the socio-economic structures, which were inherited from the colonial period.

For free Afro-descendants, the wars of independence were a victory in the sense that they were no longer considered property, and they gained equality of rights. However, it did not always mean an end to discrimination, racism, and poverty. They faced difficulties to access the rights and opportunities of the new citizens.

For indigenous communities, the wars of independence were a tragedy, as they lost the protection of the Spanish crown and their status as minors. In the name of equality, they also lost the communal ownership of their lands, which became alienable and were gradually taken over by haciendanos (landowners) and small farmers. This led to the loss of land, resources, and cultural heritage for many indigenous communities. Many of these communities were also faced with forced assimilation and cultural suppression, which led to the disappearance of many indigenous communities.

The wars of independence brought about some significant changes for Afro-descendants and indigenous communities, but these changes were not always positive, and marginalized groups continued to face discrimination, poverty and loss of cultural heritage.

For most slaves, the wars of independence did not bring about significant changes in their lives, and they continued to be oppressed and marginalized after the wars ended. The abolition of slavery was a slow process that happened at different times in different countries, with some countries such as Chile, Central America in 1824, and Mexico in 1829 abolished slavery partly due to influence of Anglo-Saxons colonizing Northern Mexico, as it was seen as a way to stop the colonization of the northern United States. In most other countries, slavery was abolished only gradually, and many slaves remained bound to their masters through debt or other forms of indentured servitude. The abolition of slavery did not always bring an end to discrimination, racism, and poverty for the former enslaved population.

In most of the Spanish American countries, the abolition of slavery was a gradual process, and laws were passed for the gradual abolition of slavery. In these countries, slavery was not abolished until the period of 1850 - 1860. This means that for most of the slaves, there was no immediate change in their lives, and they remained bound to their masters through debt or other forms of indentured servitude. The abolition of slavery did not always bring an end to discrimination, racism, and poverty for the former enslaved population. The abolition of slavery was a slow process that happened at different times in different countries, and the laws of gradual abolition were a way to mitigate the economic impact of the abolition on the slave-owning class.

The principle of equality, as stated in the constitutions of the newly independent countries, did make the caste system disappear but it did not upset the socio-racial hierarchy that existed before. New means of social mobility were created, especially in the army where a few half-breed women could move up the ranks. However, it was private property and formal education that became the new determinants of social mobility, rather than the accident of being born white, black or Indian. This does not mean that the counters were set at zero, as racial ancestry continued to play a role in determining opportunities and access to resources. Additionally, these populations were so poor at the time of their independence that they were not able to invest in education, which limited their opportunities for social mobility and perpetuated socio-economic inequality.

The new governments that emerged after the wars of independence in Spanish America did not advocate for the redistribution of land to the working classes. Instead, the land was being redistributed to the best buyers, usually the wealthy landowners, or to those who had the means to purchase it. This perpetuated the socio-economic inequality that existed under the colonial system and left the working classes, including the former enslaved population, with limited access to land and resources. This limited their opportunities for economic mobility and perpetuated poverty.

The process of independence in Spanish America involved the formation of different nations. Each country had its own unique history, culture, and social and economic structures, which shaped its identity as a nation. The wars of independence, while similar in many ways, were also shaped by the specific circumstances of each country. The leaders, social movements, and ideologies that emerged during this time played a significant role in shaping the identity of these new nations. The formation of these nations was a complex process that involved not only the separation from colonial rule but also the formation of new political, social and economic structures and the definition of a common identity and values among the population.

The formation of these different nations can be understood in the sense that founding myths were created and the independence movements brought together the populations of different regions through shared experiences such as serving in the armies or participating in the fight for freedom. Additionally, the spread of republican ideas and the adoption of these ideas as a guiding principle for the new nations helped to shape a sense of belonging to a common homeland. This was a complex process that involved not only separating from colonial rule but also creating a sense of national identity and shared values among the population, which helped to solidify the formation of these new nations

Some also argue that the formation of these different nations is not fully complete because the majority of the population did not actively participate in the independence movements and often were forcibly enrolled in the armies. The local identification remained strong among the population, and many people continued to identify with their regions and communities rather than with the newly formed nations. Additionally, the borders of the new nations largely reproduced the same divisions as before, with the division being virtually the same as that of the viceroyalties in the colonial era. The capitals of the viceroyalties continued to be the capitals of the independent nations, which reinforced the continuity of the colonial past. This means that the formation of these new nations was not a complete break from the past, but rather a continuation of it with new political structures.

Annexes

References

[1] Aline Helg - UNIGE

[2] Aline Helg - Academia.edu

[3] Aline Helg - Wikipedia

[4] Aline Helg - Afrocubaweb.com

[5] Aline Helg - Researchgate.net

[6] Aline Helg - Cairn.info

[7] Aline Helg - Google Scholar

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]