Latin America 1800s

The revolutions in South America and Mesoamerica did not bring about major political or social changes -- in many ways, the results of the revolutions had little to zero impact on the nation’s policies. For example, Prince Pedro of the Portuguese royal family declared himself King of Brazil -- this political revolution was achieved with minimal bloodshed. This may be credited to the fact that the revolution began from the top of the social hierarchy to the bottom: the traditional casta class structure and remained intact and the Catholic church remained strong in Brazil. Bolivar’s education in Enlightenment theories in Europe highlight the influence of the French revolution and its role in the revolutions in South America and Mesoamerica. Bolivar’s conquests heralded military and border shifts -- however, the continent as a whole did not experience large-scale revolution.The peasant revolt led by Catholic priest Hidalgo in the Mexican War for Independence hardly dented the nation’s domestic policies and government. Another revolt in Mexico led by Father Morelos was much more fruitful -- he declared independence for Mexico; however, upon his death, revolutionary sentiment in Mexico died out, and the nation experienced little change. This makes you think, what defines a revolution? From 1800 to 1900, South America and Mesoamerica experienced a lot of uprisings, legislation for independence, and some political changes. However, can that be considered as revolutionary? In many cases, the social order remained intact; the nations did not experience any major industrial, cultural, religious, or ideological transformation. Thus, I conclude that, despite that political independence was achieved on paper; the Latin American revolutions were not very revolutionary.