The movements for independence in 19th-century Spanish America and Portuguese America

(Brazil) followed different paths influenced by European political changes, colonial history, and
social issues.

The independence movements in Spanish and Portuguese America began after Napoleon
invaded the Iberian Peninsula in 1807–1808, which disrupted colonial rule. However, the
reactions to this situation were different because of how each colony was governed. In Spanish
America, Napoleon's capture of King Ferdinand VII created a problem of legitimacy. Without a
recognized king, Creole elites began to question colonial authority. Local councils, called
cabildos, claimed to have some power in Ferdinand’s name. This allowed Creoles to challenge
the dominance of those from Spain without starting a full rebellion. In contrast, Portugal’s royal
family, led by Prince Regent João VI, fled to Brazil in 1808. They moved the imperial court to Rio
de Janeiro. This action maintained the monarchy's legitimacy and avoided the same authority
crisis that Spanish America faced. João’s presence in Brazil ensured continuity, as local elites
took advantage of open trade policies and the support from the royal court.

The Bourbon and Pombaline reforms created different paths for Spanish America and Brazil. In
Spanish America, Bourbon reforms aimed at centralizing power upset the local creole elites.
These changes included replacing local leaders with officials from Spain and raising taxes. The
expulsion of the Jesuits in 1767 and the crackdown on indigenous uprisings, like the Túpac
Amaru II rebellion from 1780 to 1782, fueled anger against Spanish rule. In contrast, the
Marquis of Pombal's reforms in Portugal focused on diversifying the economy and strengthening
the relationship between Brazil and Lisbon. Pombal's expulsion of the Jesuits in 1759 was less
disruptive. Brazilian elites benefited from access to Jesuit lands and labor..

The Spanish-American wars of independence (1810–1825) were marked by complicated

However, these independence movements faced challenges from within. In Mexico, Father
Miguel Hidalgo led an uprising in 1810 that attracted support from indigenous and mestizo
communities. But his radical calls for land redistribution and social equality worried the creole
elite. Eventually, they took control of the movement under Agustín de Iturbide, who offered his
Plan of Iguala in 1821. This plan promised independence, Catholicism, and unity to maintain
existing social structures.

The Cadiz Mutiny of 1820 forced Ferdinand VII to accept a liberal constitution, which helped
speed up the independence movements in Spanish America. As royalist armies fell apart, creole
officers began to switch sides. Bolívar's victory at Ayacucho in 1824 signaled the end of Spanish
control. However, without a strong political plan, the newly independent countries broke apart.
Gran Colombia split into Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador, while the Río de la Plata divided
into Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia.

Brazil’s independence happened mainly because of the actions of the creole elite and the
Braganza monarchy. In 1821, when Portuguese liberals wanted João VI to return to Portugal,
his son Dom Pedro stayed in Brazil as regent. José Bonifácio de Andrada, a conservative
leader, convinced Dom Pedro to declare independence in 1822. This decision helped maintain
the monarchy and slavery. Unlike in Spanish America, Brazil did not experience large-scale
uprisings. Regional revolts, like the one in Pernambuco in 1817, were quickly defeated, and the
elite focused on keeping stability instead of making major changes. The 1825 Treaty of Rio de
Janeiro, facilitated by Britain, officially recognized Brazil’s independence while keeping
economic ties to Portugal.

Both regions kept their colonial social structures. However, Spanish America’s wars for
independence had more involvement from the general public, while Brazil’s elite worked to
maintain their power. In Spanish America, Creole leaders depended on non-white groups for
military support but did not push for major changes. Bolívar ended slavery in Gran Colombia to
recruit Afro-descendant soldiers, but after independence, racial hierarchies returned. Indigenous
groups, like those following Hidalgo and Morelos in Mexico, wanted land rights but were left out
by Creole-led governments. The 1812 Cádiz Constitution promised equality, but creoles
continued to hold political power.

Eric Van Young analyzed indigenous involvement in Mexico and highlighted this issue: even
though they fought for independence, indigenous groups mainly focused on local issues rather
than nationwide changes. In Brazil, independence did not free slaves or lessen elite control. The
1810 treaties with Britain talked about ending the slave trade but did little to change it since
planters relied on enslaved labor. The Pernambuco revolt in 1817 briefly brought up ideas of
republicanism and abolition, but loyalist forces quickly ended it. Dom Pedro’s government
prioritized the elite, ensuring that “independence did not change life much for the poorest.”
Unlike in Spanish America, Brazil’s monarchy served as a unifying symbol, helping to avoid the
racial and regional conflicts that affected its neighbors.

The paths of Spanish America and Brazil after independence led to very different outcomes.
Spanish American countries experienced instability, military rule by caudillos, and economic
reliance on British loans, while Brazil remained stable under a constitutional monarchy. New
republics in Spanish America struggled with economic ruin and weak governments, with leaders
like Bolívar and Santa Anna ruling without constitutional authority. In contrast, Brazil's monarchy,
particularly under Dom Pedro I’s 1824 constitution, balanced central and regional interests,
maintaining stability. The elite's support for slavery and export agriculture further solidified
Brazil's strong central authority, avoiding the chaos faced by Spanish America.

Skidmore and Smith explain that Brazil, or Portuguese America, differed from Spanish America
due to less control from the Portuguese crown, which focused on taxing agricultural exports
rather than establishing a complex bureaucracy. This approach reduced local elite resentment,
making rebellion less likely. In contrast to Spanish colonies, Brazil's reliance on agriculture
meant fewer opportunities for local unification. The authors argue that the Bourbon reforms,
which increased crown control, discontented creole elites by undermining their established
power. Additionally, European events like Napoleon’s invasion weakened Spanish rule,
prompting creole elites and local juntas to claim authority and justify rebellion. Initial uprisings
evolved into larger movements, with cities like Buenos Aires and Caracas becoming centers of
resistance and forming independent governments, leveraging military structures established
under the Bourbon system to confront Spanish loyalists.

Chasteen argues that the independence wars in Spanish America, while popular, were largely
conservative and upheld existing social hierarchies, with the creole elite remaining dominant
despite some violence and a slight loosening of the caste system. In "Born in Blood & Fire," she
discusses how the independence movement redefined identity, using symbols like the Virgin of
Guadalupe to unite diverse groups. Although mixed-race individuals emerged as heroes,
traditional leaders did not universally accept these changes. The military campaigns weakened
the caste system, leading to a transformation of social statuses for marginalized groups,
reflecting a complex legacy. In Brazil, independence was shaped more by external factors,
particularly the Portuguese royal family's flight to Brazil during Napoleon’s invasions. This
allowed Brazilian elites to negotiate a controlled separation from Portugal, ensuring a smoother
transition and minimizing violence.

The Penguin History of Latin America discusses Brazil's independence within a broader
historical context. It notes that unlike Spanish America, Brazil underwent earlier reforms under
the Marquis of Pombal, which improved its administrative and economic systems. When the
European crisis occurred, Brazil was well-positioned to reorganize its power with less social
disruption. The book highlights Brazil's alliance with Britain, which protected Portuguese
interests and facilitated a smoother transition to national independence through institutional
continuity rather than revolts. In contrast, the Spanish American independence movement
stemmed from the shift from Habsburg to Bourbon rule, which tightened Spain's control and
upset local elites. This breakdown led colonial elites to rethink their ties to Spain during the
Napoleonic crisis, fostering a renewed local identity and a desire for sovereignty, despite
conservative structures still in place.

Hence, the independence movements in Spanish and Portuguese America were influenced by
their unique colonial experiences and responses to the Napoleonic crisis. As noted by Skidmore
and Smith, "independence did not change life much for the poorest segments of the population,"
emphasizing the lasting effects of colonialism.