Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America

Following independence, the newly formed nations of Latin America faced many difficulties that would create decades of instability. Perhaps the greatest obstacle to overcome was economic, and these economic issues exacerbated social and political issues.

The wealth distribution in Latin America was deplorable. Not only was there a small population of elite Creoles who controlled much of the money, but the nations themselves were unequal in raw materials and exportable commodities. Nations like Mexico and Peru, who were once the crown jewels of the Spanish colonial empire, struggled to revitalize their economies following independence. For example, in many cases the wealthy silver mines of the previous era had been damaged during the wars, and the new governments lacked the money and material to fully restore them. These economic problems only served to fuel the hierarchical issues in Latin America that were carry-overs from the colonial period.

Latin America was a strictly hierarchical society, and the idea of liberalism, which was a central theme to the Enlightenment in Europe, had been spawned in nations like England and France, which were, in comparison to Spain and Portugal, already quite liberal. Thus, though Creole leadership during the revolutions preached liberalism, putting those beliefs into practice became much more difficult. The wealthy elite wanted to remain elite and in power; therefore, universal equality was contrary to their goals. The liberal motto of “government of the people” (129) raised the question of who exactly were the people and, of those people, who should actually govern. Africans and Indigenous people were never seriously considered. The caste system, established socially and legally in Spanish America during colonialism, continued following independence and for many years afterward as a de facto institution despite liberal rhetoric to the contrary. The greatest example of the conflict between liberal ideals and conservatism is found in Simón Bolívar’s struggle to create a Gran Colombia.

Bolívar dreamed of a unified South America. He was a great admirer of the French and US revolutions and of many of the Enlightenment thinkers. However, he did not believe that the liberal democracy established in the United States would work for South America. He felt the people there had been controlled for too long by corrupted institutions, and therefore, the people needed a more authoritarian government. There needed to be strong, centralized control. Bolívar’s greatest political project was the establishment of Gran Colombia. Gran Colombia contained the modern nations of Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia, and Panama. However, political infighting and disagreements decidedly neutralized any attempt to keep the three nations together. Following on unsuccessful war against Peru, Bolívar renounced his presidency and Gran Colombia quickly broke apart (Panama remained attached to Colombia until 1903). The history of Gran Colombia functions as a microcosm of politics in Spanish America following independence. Political unification, agreement on constitutions, border disputes, personal power struggles, questions of representation, etc., all plagued every Latin American nation during the early post-colonial years. There is a certain tragedy regarding Gran Colombia because its unification had the potential to be a great state. John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State, stated that Gran Colombia had the potential of becoming a great nation.

The dissolution of Gran Colombia, Simón Bolívar’s inability to hold it together (or to unify any of the lands he aided in liberation to agree to work together), and the rise of caudillismo throughout Spanish America illustrates just how great a disunity existed following independence. In a way, caudillismo further highlights Bolívar’s argument that South America was not ready for liberal government because liberalism did fail throughout the region. Every caudillo was conservative and strictly authoritarian. In fact, the authoritarian governments established by caudillos were far worse than the type of centralized government Bolívar had planned for Gran Colombia, which had been one of the main points of contention. Therefore, the inability of liberals and conservatives to work together to form a stable government (among other reasons) led to a form of government worse than any compromise would have been.

Of course, the situation in Brazil was different from Spanish America in many ways; however, the conflicts between liberalism and conservatism were just as detrimental to true political unification and stability as in the rest of Latin America. Pedro I, the new Emperor of Brazil, had fought hard politically for Brazil’s independence. He adored the works of such liberal and Enlightened thinkers as Voltaire and Edmund Burke. After becoming emperor, however, he discovered how difficult it was to implement many liberal theories, and his government was more conservative than liberal. There were several reasons for this that had more to do with the prevailing issues throughout Latin America than with his personal views and goals. Though Brazil was independent from Portugal, Pedro I was Portuguese; thus, he and Brazil maintained close ties with Portugal. In fact, directly following independence, Brazil had to battle against Portuguese forces for the interior of the country because independence had only extended from São Paulo to Rio de Janeiro.

Furthermore, just like everywhere else, the Brazilian parliamentary could not reach a compromise on the balance of powers within the newly created government. The liberals wanted most power centralized in the parliament, whereas the conservatives wanted the emperor to possess predominant control over state affairs. In the end, Pedro I did little to directly intervene. He often led by example rather than attempt any personal intervention, which may or may not have alleviated the situation. A case in point involved slavery. Pedro I supported the liberation of enslaved people, but he supported a gradual manumission over an abrupt end, and he did not have the constitutional right to free them. His intention then was to lead by example: He freed all his enslaved people. The liberals wanted him to do more than provide an example of abolition.

However, had he personally interfered and used an authoritarian hand to free the enslaved people, it would not have improved the political situation in Brazil. The simple fact of the matter was that the political infighting and disagreements were too strong for the government to make any true liberal headway. Fortunately for Brazil, the result of this political strife did not end in caudillismo. However, it did result in a more authoritarian government under Pedro I’s son, Pedro II. Fortunately, Pedro II was benevolent and did not rule Brazil with an iron fist as the caudillos did. Brazil’s early post-colonial history provides more evidence to support Simón Bolívar’s claim about Latin America needed a strong centralized government instead of a liberal government like those in the United States or Great Britain.