Lecture 26 -- Latin America From Independence to the 1940s
Latin American History: Despite its resources, Latin America has been plagued by poverty. Why?
Dependency Theory: Proponents of this theory argue that independence failed to break Latin
America free of cultural and economic dependence on Europe and North America. Because the
Creoles turned to foreign investment for development, those foreign investors exploited Latin
America's wealth for their own benefit. Those powers also supported strong, dictatorial
governments to support their interests.
Iberian Heritage: Another theory emphasizes the heritage from Spain and Portugal. It
emphasizes how Spain, Italy, and Portugal have shared the problems of Latin America with
unstable governments, inequality of wealth, and dictatorship.
Creole Action: A third theory emphasizes how the Creoles (people of European descent) set out
to safeguard their power over the Mestizos (mixed European-Indian ancestroy), Indians, and
Blacks after independence. They aligned themselves economically and culturally and politically
with the liberal European regimes, in opposition to the interests of the lower classes. Liberal
economics justified the unlimited exploitation of other groups, followed by using that wealth to
keep power.
Latin America in the Global Economy: After independence, Latin America was enmeshed in
the global economy in the role of a producer of raw materials and cash crops to be processed
elsewhere (as it often had been before independence). Most of them had very narrow economies,
overly dependent on one or two crops or products, and prone to disaster if the price of that good or
goods plunged.
Independence Without Revolution
Immediate Consequences of Latin American Independence: The wars of Independence left
most of Latin America exhausted and their economies devastated. There was much disagreement
about the future. Privileged institutions wanted to protect their privileges, like the Church, and
Indians wanted to escape exploitation, now that they were citizens, but found themselves devoid
of old paternalistic protections. The countryside and the cities resented each other.
Absence of Social Change: The elites all opposed social change on any large scale. In theory, all
had equal rights and slavery ended everywhere but Brazil. However, only the propertied could
actually vote. Racial prejudices persisted. White Creoles ruled. The Creoles kept control of
landholding. The absence of social revolution was crucial to the history of Latin America.
Control of the Land: Agriculture was dominated by haciendas (large plantations). These lands
grew larger in the 19th century and their owners ruled like local lords. Work was labor intensive
with few tools. Landowners formed their own elite, interbred society. The rural workforce was
poor and dependent on them. Debt peonage tied many to the land. Newly opened lands were also
turned into plantations or land set up for tenant farming. After 1850, urban life boomed. Peasants,
Europeans, and even Asians moved to the cities. Urban and rural elites made deals to protect their
pursuit of their own economic interest.
Submissive Political Philosophies: Creoles adopted European liberalism, which encouraged the
removal of any social or economic protections from the masses, while property requirements
blocked most from voting. Free trade was adopted, spending mineral reserves and selling
agricultural produce to Europeans for European manufactured goods. Cheap imports and a lack of
capital discourged industrial growth. European positivism, which the strict following of the
scientific method to achieve objective truth and technological progress, swept across Latin
America in the 19th century. Modernization could best be achieved by technocrats or military
dictatorship, they believed. (The emphasis on human rights and individual freedom of European
positivism fell by the wayside.) Social groups which challenged order and progress were seen as
inferior, to be swept aside. (Heritage, p. 778.) European theories of 'scientific' racism were also
imported to justify treating the Blacks, Mestizos, and Indians like human garbage. They blamed
the economic backwardness on the 'inferior races'. This set of ideas positioned the military to act
as conservators of order, taking over whenever social changes threatened to break out. Secondly,
it strongly inclined Latin American elites to oppose social-change advocating Communists in the
20th century.
Economy of Dependence
Outside Influence: After Independence, Latin America remained dependent on foreign lands to
supply manufactured goods and to sell their produce. Large internal markets didn't exist because
colonial production had been oriented for export to Spain and Portugal. Geographic barriers also
hampered trade.
New Exploitation of Resources: By 1830, the wars of independence had destroyed a lot of old
economic infrastructure. Lacking capital, aid from Europe was needed to restore the economy to
functioning. Britain would dominate Latin America's economy for decades due to its investments
and willinginess to engage in free trade. Britain also discouraged development of industry in
Latin America. Latin America developed its raw material and agricultural production to pay for
all this investment and imports. There was so much land it was easier to expand than increase
productivity. After 1850, Latin America grew more prosperous. Despite the narrowness of the
new economies, Latin American elites would see 1870 to 1930 as a golden age of prosperity. The
ever growing American and European economies needed ever more of Latin America's produce
and had more and more goods to sell in return. Three major categories of exports: food which
could be grown anywhere, tropical produce and natural (mineral) resources. The Latin American
economy inexorably became linked to the global economy.
Increased Foreign Ownership and Influence: By 1900, foreigners dominated the most booming
sectors of the Latin American economy. In 1901, British and other foreign investors owned about
80% of the nitrate trade in Chile, for example. Foreign powers used their military might to protect
investments, especially the United States. (Example: US support of the Panama revolt of 1903 to
secure the land the Panama Canal would be built on.) By the 1920s, US investments became
dominant. In the 1920s, European share of Latin American trade declined and worse, global
commodity prices began to plunge downward. Synthetics were replacing some of Latin America's
natural products. Petroleum grew in importance.
Economic Crises and New Directions: The Great Depression turned growing problems into
disaster. Demand for Latin American produce shrank. Latin American countries could not pay
their debts and suspended interest payments. This further hurt the creditor nations, creating a
vicious cycle of shrinking demand. The Depression led to an era of economic nationalism.
Industry: Until the 1940s, there was little industry in Latin America. The Depression
forced Latin America to develop more industry to make up for goods which couldn't be
imported due to defaults on loans. By the mid-40s, there were three kinds of industry:
industry preparing natural products for export, industries to meet local demands, and
industry transforming imported products.
Search for Political Stability:
Lack of Self-Government Experience: Unlike the new United States, Spain's ex-colonies had
little experience of self-government. Some Creoles favored a native monarchy (as in Brazil).
Strongmen tended to emerge, the caudillos, who took power by force. They were accepted to
promote stability, often ending regional conflicts. Even when forced out, their replacements were
often not very democratic.
Three National Histories
Argentina
Buenos Aires vs. The Provinces: Buenos Aires had revolted in 1810, but was unable to
secure subission by Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia, which had been under a common
government with it. The first 70 years of independence pitted Buenos Aires against the
other provinces it did control. Its dominance of international trade eventually let it win.
After an early attempt at liberal democratic rule, caudillo Juan Manuel de Rosas (17931877) came to power. He ruled from 1829 to 1852. He portrayed himself as a man of the
people and ruled by violence, using a paramilitary force—La Mazorca ("The Corncob").
He made war on various of the Indian tribes of the plains, endearing himself to the
cowboys of the plains by doing so. He tried and failed to seize Uruguay and Paraguay.
Defeated by Justo José de Urquiza (caudillo of the province of Entre Rios, backed by
Brazil and Uruguay) in 1852, he fled to Britain and spent his final years as a farmer.
Expansion and Growth of the Provinces: Urquiza's triumph over Rosas mirrored
provincial resentment of Buenos Aires dominance. Buenos Aires, however, continued to
flourish despite being politically hammered and even conquered. The rise of refrigerator
ships enabled Argentine beef to be shipped to Europe. Massive war against the plains
indians in 1879-80 opened more land for cattle-raising. Beef and wheat export now made
Argentina (and British investors who built railroads deep into the pampas (plains)) rich.
European Immigrants flooded in to work as tenant farmers on newly opened lands. Cities
grew. The growing middle class pressed for more political power, forming the Radical
Party in 1890. In 1912, the franchise expanded. The Radicals soon came into alliance
with conservatives against labor unrest.
The Military in Ascendance: In 1930, the military overthrew the now corrupt Radicals
and held power for a time. Right wing nationalism (nacionalismo) was growing stronger
in Argentina. It was similar to European fascism. They saw British and American
investment as imperialism. They were pro-catholic and called for reforms to help the
poor, though also stressing social harmony. The economic problems during World War
II led to another military coup. The military followed nationalist ideology, seeing liberal
politicians as corrupt and self-interested. Between 1943 and 1946, officer Juan Peron
(1895-1974) forged this discontent into the Peronista movement. It was authoritarian,
militaristic, but socially progressive. He made himself the voice of working-class
democracy. He ruled from 1946-56, the embodiment of 20th century caudillos.
Mexico
Turmoil Follows Independence: From 1820 to 1870, Mexico floundered in a series of
conflicts between Creole conservatives and Creole and Mestizo liberals who attacked the
Catholic church and large landowners. Until 1823, General Iturbide ruled as Emperor of
Mexico. After his fall, a series of caudillos took power, most notably the ever-politically
resurrected General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (1794-1876). He tended to rule with
conservative support but was at heart an opportunist. His greatest accomplishment was
repelling a Spanish invasion in 1829. He was chosen President of Mexico 11 times, none
of them consecutive, from 1833 to 1855, including a return from exile to take over during
the Mexican-American War (1846-8). By midcentury, La Reforma emerged as an antiSanta Anna movement. La Reforma pushed for political stability, civilian rule, and an
economic policy to promote foreign investment and immigration. Having driven out
Santa Anna in 1855, they now redistributed land to the peasantry, most of it originally
church land. This led to a civil war from 1857 to 1860. Benito Juarez (1806-1872),
Mestizo leader of La Reforma captured Mexico City just in time for the French invasion
of the 1860s. Political chaos hurt the economy, disrupting trade, destroying resources,
and leading to massive debt.
Foreign Intervention: Mexican weakness led to foreign incursions. In the 1820s,
Mexico encouraged foreign settlement in Texas, trying to strengthen their hold in it. But
this ultimately led to a takeover by American settlers in 1835-6. Texas was a republic
until 1845, when the US annexed it. At the same time, American Mormons were taking
over what is now Utah in northern Mexico, Santa Fe trading families were marrying into
American families, and US farmers from Oregon were infiltrating Northern California.
The northern third of Mexico had always been lightly settled. Now Americans were
slowly taking over more and more of it, directly or subtly. This culminated in the
Mexican-American War (1846-8). The poorly trained and supplied Mexican army was
no match for American forces. By 1847, the modern US states of California, Nevada,
Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico were in American hands, Santa Anna had returned to
power and had to flee again, and Mexico City was captured by General Winfield Scott.
In the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago, the US took a third of Mexico, paying 15
million for it all.
The French Adventure: In 1861, desperate Mexican conservatives, defeated
by Juarez, invited Archduke Maximillian Habsburg (1832-1867) to become
Emperor of Mexico. Maximillian happened to be the brother-in-law of Emperor
Napoleon III of France. In May 1862, the French invaded and took over, setting
up a short-lived monarchy. By 1867, Juarez overthrew, captured, and executed
Maximillian.
Porfirio Diaz (1830-1915): After the overthrow of Maximilian, Juarez and the liberals
tried to continue their policy of modernization, but they conflicted heavily with the
church and failed to gain public support. In 1876, four years after Juarez's death, liberal
general Porfirio Diaz led a coup and took over, taking the office of president, to which he
would be 're-elected' periodically until 1911. (With one brief interlude in which a proxy
held office for him.) He was able to rule effectively by throwing everyone a bone who
had any power—landlords could extort their peasants, the army held a position of high
honor, and he appeased the church by leaving it alone. A combination of repression and
bribery silenced dissent. (Heritage, p. 787.) The rich got richer and the poor were
successfully suppressed. Foreign capital flooded in, Mexico paid its debts on time, and
was respected as a stable country. However, Diaz's mistreatment of the lower classes set
up a time bomb to explode. When real wages plunged after 1900 and the economy
faltered, the situation was ready to go up.
The Mexican Revolution: In 1910, Diaz faced reformer Francisco Madero (18731913), who campaigned on a reform platform that included making sure presidents could
not be re-elected in the future. Diaz won, but Madero now lead a coup against him that
drove him into exile in 1911. Madero now became president, but his basic caution at
carrying out most reforms alienated conservatives and liberals alike. Radicals now
emerged, calling for massive social change. Pancho Villa (1874-1923) in the North and
Emiliano Zapata (1879-1919) in the south both led peasants who wanted land reform.
The next ten years would pit fans and opponents of land redistribution against each other.
In 1913, US Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge helped general Victoriano Huerta (18541916) overthrow Madero. His efforts to suppress the revolting peasants succeeded only
in stacking up bodies for burial. Meanwhile, landowner Venustiano Carranza (18591920) joined Pancho Villa. He assembled a 'Constitutionalist' army—calling for a return
to constitutional rule. For a time, Zapata and Villa both backed him. On August 15,
1914, they stormed Mexico City and Huerta was deposed. Carranza fell out with Villa
and Zapata over failing to carry out land reform, but was able to build a broader political
and military base than them. He also was able to win the backing of urban workers. By
1917, he was at war with Villa and Zapata and wrote the Constitution of 1917.
The Constitution of 1917 called for social revolution (mostly ignored) and
political reform. Article 27 provided for nationalization of water, mineral, and
other underground property rights. This allowed peasants to reclaim land and
the nation to seize oil and coal facilities belonging to foreigners. Article 123
gave workers the right to an 8 hour day and six hour work week, the right to
organize and to strike, a minimum wage regardless of sex or nationality, and an
idemnity if their employer fired them without due cause. Carranza's forces were
essentially conservative middle class reformers who wanted to set up a
government of benevolent paternalism, using radical rhetoric to appease the
peasantry and to justify measures to reclaim Mexico's resources for Mexicans.
Consolidating the Revolution: By 1923, the revolutionary generation leaders
were dead, slain in battle or assassinated. In the 1920s, military officers from
the Constitutionalist army took over. They moved cautiously, opposed by the
church. In 1929, they organized the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party),
which would dominate Mexico for the rest of the 20 th century. Only in very
recent years has this party relaxed its grip on Mexico. However, while politics
now became a matter of internal PRI debate, the PRI acted to suppress any
would-be strongmen. In 1934, Lazaro Cardenas (1895-1970) was elected
president and began finally carrying out old promises. He turned over tens of
millions of acres of land to peasant villages. In 1938, he seized all the
possessions of foreign oil companies and created PeMex to run Mexican oil.
With the election of Manuel Avila Camacho in 1940, the era of revolutionary
politics was over.
Brazil
The Dynasty: A series of monarchs of the Braganza dynasty ruled independent Brazil in
the 19th century. The Napoleonic Wars had forced the Portuguese monarchs to flee to
Brazil in 1808. In 1822, it became an independent empire under Pedro I (1822-31). His
son Pedro II would rule from 1831 to 1889, a wise and savvy ruler. He successfully
played the two major parties against each other, and Brazil was very stable.
Slavery: The great issue, however, was slavery. Brazil remained economically
dependent on slavery-based sugar production. However, after 1850, coffee grew in
importance. Coffee-growers were more open to emancipation. By 1850, it was almost
impossible to import slaves, which put pressure on the sugar planters. The Paraguayan
War (1865-1870) delayed the sugar issue until Paraguay's defeat. A law of 1871 freed
royal slaves and provided for children of current slaves to be free in the future at age 21.
An abolitionist movement now grew. During Pedro's absence in Europe for medical
reasons, his daughter signed an 1888 bill outlawing slavery.
Monarchy to Republic: However, the monarchy now collapsed. Pedro II was getting
old and sick, the Church opposed his education reforms, sugar planters were angry at
losing so much property (slaves), and the military felt unrewarded. In 1889, the army
exiled Pedro II. From 1891-1930, Brazil became a republic. It was dominated by
wealthy coffee planters. Only the literate could vote and the two strongest states shared
the presidency, while allowing other states a lot of autonomy. By 1900, 3/4ths of exports
were coffee and increasingly the rest of the economy was tapped to prop up the price of
coffee in the face of rising foreign competition.
Economic Problems and the End of the Republic: Immigrants flooded into Brazil
between 1890 and 1930. Most became urban workers, increasingly discontent with a
government that favored coffee growers over all else. Two failed military coups in the
1920s showed that some sectors of the military were fed up as well. The Great
Depression destroyed the coffee business, causing prices to plunge and making other
nations unable to afford to buy. In October 1930, General Getulio Vargas (1883-1954)
took over, ruling from 1930-45. Vargas arranged his government to act to try to appease
the disgruntled groups without actually allowing them direct power or representation. He
wanted to modernize Brazil. Vargas tried to promote the rise of new industries other than
coffee. By the mid-thirties, new businesses were growing. He now turned to protecting
the rights of labor to an 8 hour day and a minimum wage. He used his dictatorial powers
both to repress dissent but also to force further modernization and state direction of the
economy. In 1945, he tried to step down, but the military staged a coup to ensure
democracy. He served as president later in 1950-4.
Democratic Brazil: After his death, Brazil built a new capital, Brasilia, which was
hugely expensive, and carried out other costly projects. Cities were growing and the
automobile industry flourished. By the 1960s, though, many workers and urbanites felt
their concerns needed addressing, as did peasants. In 1964, President Joao Goulert
committed himself to land redistribution. Instead, the military revolted and overthrew
him.