Post-Independence Period in Latin America

Question 1:
Post-Independence Period in Latin America
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Name and Number
Professor
Due Date
Question 1:
Post-Independence Period in Latin America
The Dutch attacked Latin America, excluding Cuba and Puerto Rico. Spain lost most of its Caribbean assets in the seventeenth century and fought to protect its territory for most of the eighteenth century (Wiarda & Kline, 2018). Supreme rule brought whole districts into direct contact with the strains and contentions between European states. However, most states engaged in military struggles. Spain, Portuguese, and Brazil skirmished over territory that is currently Uruguay. These conflicts stirred up a mix of long-building pressures in the local rule.
Following the American and French transformations model, the vast majority of Latin America gained its independence by 1825. Independence obliterated the old regular market under the Spanish Empire after the Bourbon Reforms. Thus, there was increased reliance on financial assistance from countries that had already started industrializing. Western European powers, specifically Great Britain, France, and the United States, began to assume significant parts of these nations since the area had become economically dependent. Independence also brought about a new Latin American administering class and scholarly people, which on occasion avoided Spanish and Portuguese models in their mission to reshape their social orders.
One of the most pressing and enduring challenges the leaders of Latin American nations faced in the decades after independence was establishing the legitimacy of their new governments. In this regard, breaking the colonial system proved a significant challenge. In Iberian political traditions, power and authority were constrained by the monarch. Only the monarch could dominate the church, the military, and other powerful entities. The Spanish King was the ultimate source of political legitimacy. His ousting from power, the Creole elites had to create new establishments under which administration developments would be accepted by their fellow citizens. Although they could not leave the traditions of the old Iberian colonial rule, leaders in Latin America went by and large to other political customs for answers to political legitimacy (Sinha, 2000). Integrating models from northern Europe and the United States with their own, they set up republics across the region. By doing so, they legitimized their detachment from Spain and the now empowered Latin America.
The failed endeavours in Spanish America to keep together most of the large initial states formed after independence, Gran Colombia, the United Provinces of South America, and the Federal Republic of Central America, led to multiple domestic and interstate conflicts that plagued the newly formed countries. The homegrown wars were often fights between the federalists and the centrists. They ended up asserting themselves through the military repression of their opponents to the detriment of civilian political life. The new states acquired the cultural diversity of the colonial era and chose to create a new identity based on the shared culture and language. Nonetheless, cultural, social, and class divisions created tension that hurt national unity.
While Brazil kept its territorial integrity after independence, the old Spanish America split into more than twelve separate states, following the administrative divisions of the colonial system. The challenge for the inhabitants of these states was not as essential as boundary demarcation. Instead, the emancipated countries of Latin America faced the daunting task of defining and consolidating new states. With the old system's structures eliminated, each state's inhabitants set out on programs to create a postcolonial political, economic, and social order. The impediments confronting them were myriad and striking. One major factor that led to political disorder was that the boundaries created were unreliable. Most conflicts from this error were the Paraguayan War of 1864 to 1870 and the War of the Pacific of 1879 to 1884. The Paraguayan War saw three states pit against one. Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina were against Paraguay, and as a result, Paraguay lost, suffering a demographic collapse. Its population dropped from an estimated 525,000 inhabitants in 1864 to 221,000 in 1871. Of all this population, 28,000 were men. In the War of the Pacific, Bolivia and Peru pit against Chile. Chile won despite the two nations combining forces against them. Chile took control of saltpetre-rich regions that Peru and Bolivia once controlled. In effect of this loss, Bolivia became a landlocked nation.
Another factor was the constitution. In the early years of independence, the elite class all through Latin America showed the influence of enlightenment in their delivery of constitutions. Those documents showed not just endeavours to impose plans on new nations but the attitude and mentality of the elite towards the social order. Those constitutions looked to create a representative government in the newly independent Latin America and to instil rights of freedom, security, property, and equality (Sinha, 2000). The constitutions needed to create a division of power for those ideas to be implemented, but the executive was weak. From the mid-1810s to the mid-century, the overwhelming inclination was to get away from those plans. With various regions and the elite fighting against one another, the first liberal constitutional regime had failed. This failure led leaders to include their programs in the constitution. Initially, the elites wanted a more powerful state to complete the victory over Spain and gain recognition from Europe. As political order proved challenging, many Latin American leaders looked to a more centralized state as an instrument against political and civil unrest.
The caudillos were dominant figures in Latin American history. They were both regional chieftains and national leaders in the troubled years of the early nineteenth century. Their power base rested on land ownership and controlling outlawed bands. They were the constitutional rulers' opponents and the tyrants' forerunners (Wiarda & Kline, 2018). They transitioned from bandit chiefs to guerrilla leaders and later republican heroes. They were best known for fighting to defend their land and garnered national support. While most of the caudillos took over the government and got so much success running it, others faced strong opposition. The caudillos held on to power by using militia factions that helped them impose forceful and authoritarian rule.
Indeed, Caudillos rose to power during the Spanish-American wars of independence. After the fall of the colonial regime, a power vacuum was left, and since the caudillos were very influential and famous, they took over. Their popularity rose because they would flatter people by giving away land and resources. Caudillos were mainly related to a band of armed men involved during the freedom conflicts. They first had a good reputation of men battling for their property but later became connected to the dictator rule of strongmen. Caudillos started their vocations at the nearby level, and some accumulated public help. Many assumed control over the general authority of a nation and were influential in keeping up with it, while others confronted solid resistance.