Tag Archives: Latin America

A brief, over-simplified history of Latin America: The Monroe Doctrine

John Quincy Adams is considered to be one of the prime supporters of the concept of manifest destiny. As Secretary of State under James Monroe, Adams crafted a document known as the Monroe Doctrine. It basically warned all foreign powers that any colonization of territory in the Americas would be considered as aggression against the United States.

It was a watershed moment in U.S. foreign policy. The United States was claiming the right to intervene anywhere in the Americas if foreign powers were involved. Later, Teddy Roosevelt would expand the policy to allow the U.S. to intervene in the case of “flagrant and chronic wrongdoing by a Latin American Nation.” That gave the U.S. the right to address internal issues in other nations as well as external influences.

These policies put the United States in the role of policing the Americas. They would lead to numerous military interventions as well as countless covert operations. Though John Quincy Adams didn’t achieve his expansionists goals in Latin America, his dream of regional domination lived on long after him.

A brief, over-simplified history of Latin America: Manifest Destiny

It’s time to start relating the history of Latin America with the history of the rest of America. Early on in the 19th century, the concept of manifest destiny was popular in the United States. It was the idea that God had ordained that white people should spread democracy from the Atlantic to the Pacific, then from Canada to Argentina. In other words, the entirety of the Americas was destined (manifestly) to become a part of the United States.

Even as the actual “manifest destiny” idea died out, the idea of unifying the Americas did not. No treaty and no concept of human rights could keep this movement from achieving their heaven-decreed goal. Lie, swindle, murder and steal… as long as you’re doing it for the advancement of this heavenly cause, it’s okay. Especially if those that you are abusing are not white.

This idea came to a head in the 1840s. War broke out with Mexico, and Congress was divided over the ultimate aims of the war. Some felt that the only way to have lasting peace was to annex the entirety of the Mexican state, and they based their arguments on the concept of manifest destiny. However, other proponents of manifest destiny opposed the move on the grounds that the inclusion of Mexicans in the United States would hurt the purity of the nation. John Calhoun pronounced in Congress:

[W]e have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race…. We are anxious to force free government on all; and I see that it has been urged … that it is the mission of this country to spread civil and religious liberty over all the world, and especially over this continent. It is a great mistake.

Eventually, the country settled for the acquisition of over half of Mexico’s land. Almost 15% of present day United States was part of Mexico prior to 1836 (the Texas revolution).

The land was obtained, but the idea of manifest destiny would not survive. The debate during the war had split the movement, and it would never recover.

A brief, over-simplified history of Latin America: Wars of independence

Bolivar and San Martín

The reign of the Bourbons in Spain had created a time of political unrest in the Americas. The Bourbons rolled back many of the political gains that the colonists had made, appointing officials from Spain to occupy key governmental posts in the New World. When Napoleon displaced the Bourbon king in 1808, setting off the Peninsular War between Spain and France, many people in the Americas felt that time had come for them to be independent of the Crown.

Though many could be named, the two most famous leaders of the independence movement were Bolivar (Simón José Antonio de la Santísima Trinidad Bolívar y Palacios Ponte y Blanco) and San Martín (José Francisco de San Martín).

Bolivar’s family came to Venezuela in the 16th century. He attended military school as a boy and studied in Spain as a teenager. He returned to Venezuela in 1807 and soon joined the fight for independence. His leadership skills quickly earned him the name El Libertador (the Liberator). He was the commander of the forces that won freedom for the northern part of South America, and he was instrumental in the establishment of the nation of Gran Colombia (a state covering much of modern Colombia, Panama, Venezuela, Ecuador, northern Peru, and northwest of Brazil), serving as the first president. He hoped to create a federal union, modeled on the United States, but was unsuccessful in unifying the nations. He eventually declared himself dictator to try and preserve the union, but his efforts failed.

Bolivar resigned in 1830. His famous statement “All who served the Revolution have plowed the sea” reflected his intention to move to Europe, as other revolutionary leaders had done. However, he fell ill before embarking and died in December of that year. Hugo Chavez has long affirmed that Bolivar was poisoned by “New Grenada traitors,” and even had a forensic expert study Bolivar’s bones. The expert said that Bolivar could have died of arsenic poisoning, but the results were inconclusive.

In the south, it was San Martin that led the charge. San Martin was born in Argentina, son of a Spanish soldier. His father returned to Spain when San Martin was very young and San Martin was raised in Spain. After a successful military career in Spain, including campaigns in the Peninsular War, San Martin returned to South America and joined the independence movement. Why? Historians have offered various opinions, but San Martin never stated his motives.

San Martin first fought against the Spanish in several battles in Argentina, then led his army across the Andes to engage the Spanish in Chile and Peru. The crossing took more than a month and was carried out under extreme hardship, but the move was decisive in defeating the royalists. Winning decisive battles at Chacabuco and Maipú, San Martin eventually forced the Crown to recognize of Chile. San Martin later joined with Bolivar’s forces to obtain Peruvian independence, though San Martin was eventually forced to resign from the army in deference to Bolivar’s power.

San Martin returned to Argentina. During the ensuing Argentine Civil Wars, San Martin attempted to stay neutral. He eventually moved to Europe, where he died. Eventually his remains were taken to Buenos Aires and placed in the Cathedral of that city. Because of his neutrality during the internal struggles in Argentina, he was seen as a controversial figure for many years, but is now regarded as the supreme national hero in Argentina.

A brief, over-simplified history of Latin America: The Battle of Havana

The significance of the Battle of Havana (1762) has been greatly overlooked, in my opinion, when considering the forces that shaped the Americas. Spain’s dominance of the seas had been broken at the Battle of Gravelines during the Anglo-Spanish war at the end of the 16th century. However, their dominance over the waters around Central and South America remained unchecked until the Seven Years War (also known as the French and Indian War; I call it the first world war, since it was fought over 5 continents (and the Pacific theater) between all of the major military powers of the Western world.

When the King of Spain saw the coming conflict with Great Britain, he knew that he had to take steps to hold onto Cuba. Cuba was the gateway to the Americas, the port through which Spanish fleets entered and exited the region. Plus, whoever controlled Cuba controlled not only the Caribbean but also the Gulf of Mexico.

Carlos III of Spain sent Juan de Prado as commander in chief of the forces in Havana. The priority for De Prado was to fortify the elevated area above the Morro castle; the Morro controlled all access to the Havana harbor. Due to negligence and the scourge of yellow fever, this work was never completed. That would prove to be the downfall of the Spanish forces in Cuba. When the British came, they were able to capture this high ground, bombard the castle, and eventually breach its walls.

Here’s the description of the aftermath, taken from Wikipedia:

On 14 August the British entered the city. They had obtained possession of the most important harbour in the Spanish West Indies along with military equipment, 1,828,116 Spanish pesos and merchandise valued around 1,000,000 Spanish pesos. Furthermore, they had seized 20% of the ships of the line of the Spanish Navy, namely Aquilón (74), Conquistador (74), Reina (70), San Antonio (64), Tigre (70), San Jenaro (60), África (70), América (60), Infante (74) and Soberano (74), together with 3 frigates, 9 smaller vessels and some armed vessels belonging to trading companies (Compañía de La Habana and Compañía de Caracas). Furthermore, two new almost-completed ships of the line were seized in the dockyards – San Carlos (80) and Santiago (60 or 80).

It’s hard to exaggerate what a blow this was to the Spanish interests in America. While the British returned Cuba (in exchange for Florida), the damage had been done. Besides the material damage, the demonstration that the Spanish forces could be defeated would embolden the independence movements in Central and South America. Over the next 60 years, Spain would lose all of their holdings in the Americas, except Cuba and Puerto Rico.

The Spanish dominance of the Americas ended with the Battle of Havana.

A brief, over-simplified history of Latin America: Distribution of land

The partitioning of the New World would have a profound effect on American history. The Spanish crown in particular was generous in doling out land grants to those who had curried favor with the crown. Most of those in power in Spain had little idea as to the exact size of the grants they were giving out nor to the quality of the land being given; basically, this was a way to give something of value that cost the Crown little or nothing. In many cases, the land had not yet been settled, so what was being given only belonged to Spain in theory.

As Latin America moved forward and won its independence from Spain, the vast majority of the land remained in the hands of a few rich and powerful families. It’s been said that 90% of the land was in the hands of 10% of the people; I’m not sure those percentages have research to support them, but they give us an idea of the situation. Over time, these powerful families would write the constitutions and laws, giving themselves the political power they needed to retain their holdings.

This simple fact had a decisive impact on the socio-political structure of Latin America. Those in power had little interest in reform. Those who called for reform were ignored, exiled, imprisoned or killed. In the 20th century, the situation was even simpler. All the elites had to do was label any reform movement as communism, and Big Brother from the North would swoop in and quash any attempts at change.

Throughout modern history, much land in Latin America has been unused or underused due to the disproportionate distribution of land. Many reforms have been attempted and some have been successful. But there’s still a lot that needs to be done to undo centuries-old injustices in this area.

photo by Douglas Fernandes