Imperial Crisis and Wars of National Liberation - Literature review Example

Name Tutor’s Name: Course: Date: Imperial Crisis and Wars of National Liberation When used in the South American context, the term ‘imperial crisis’ refers specifically to conflict that occurred between America as a colony and Britain as the colonial power. Notably, imperial crisis does not refer to a specific event; rather it refers to a series of historical events, which set off the liberation revolution based on concerns of trade and self rule. Bushnell for example cites restricted direct trade as one of the reasons why the imperial crisis occurred in South America (13). The term ‘wars of national liberation’ has a contested meaning in literature, but in this essay, it will be defined as the use of armed force by peoples to go against the rule and wishes of what they perceive as an oppressive regime (Goerick 71). Specifically, wars of national liberation are defined by their goal, which is “the implementation of a recognised right of self-determination” (Goerick 71). This research essay will argue that the imperial crises lay the necessary groundwork for the commencement of the wars of liberation. The Origin of the Imperial Crisis The origin of the imperial crisis in Mexico can be traced back to 1808 when Napoleon Bonaparte commanded his forces to occupy New Spain; as a result political activity intensified and brought new political thoughts and actions (Beezley and Meyer 271; Guedea 116). The new political thoughts and actions paved way for New Spain’s independent life (Beezley & Meyer 271). Napoleon’s occupation precipitated rapid changes, which were basically political. At the time, the French invaded and took over the Iberian Peninsula forcing the rulers of the Peninsula then to abandon their governing duties. To protect themselves, a new group, which is defined as “anonymous undifferentiated mass”, which took up the name ‘el comun’- the people came into being (Guedea 116). The people fought against the French who had invaded their territory with all they had, and as such, the battle took a political and a military perspective. The conflict was partly instigated by the Bourbon reforms, which according to Beezley and Meyer, freed trade and increased revenues but also played a role in monetary inflation (271). The situation was worsened by the fact that the central administration continued raking in profits from taxes and other charges while the larger economy had flopped. New Spain was later to become the independent Mexican nation (Archer 85). Before becoming an independent state however, it took the effort of Mexicans (then known as New Spaniards), who re-evaluated individual interest and reassessed their collective goals (Archer 86). The foregoing actions led to the formation of a new political society, which become the platform on which the people discussed, analysed and proposed solutions with which they addressed existing problems at the time. Yet, all was not a smooth sail for the people; in the same social fabric were the European Spaniards, who used the Audiencia of Mexico – high court of Mexico – to emphasise the colonial status of New Spain (Guedea 117). Additionally, there were divisions among the Creole (Americans) and the Peninsular (European), which culminated in the violence and coup d’état of September 15, 1808 (Guedea 118). During the coup, those who defended imperial interests took their own principal autonomist and viceroy hostage. This situation marked the beginning of polarisation among New Spaniards. After the coup, most of the opposition to the regime was done in secret, and in one such case of secrecy was the conspiracy that was discovered in Valladolid city in 1809. The foregoing discovery was made by the colonial authorities hence making them afraid that discontent expressed in the discovered communication would spread. To prevent that from happening, the colonial authorities used repression to those who opposed the imperial rule, bit as Guedea notes, the repression only “exacerbated the differences between the defenders of the status quo and the autonomists” (119). It was after the 1810 discovery of two conspiracies (one in Queretaro City and another in the Bajio region) that an insurrection led by Father Miguel Hidalgo took place. Father Hidalgo led the insurrection with the aim of combating bad government, and to “defend the realm, the king, and the Catholic religion from the French” (Guedea 119). Under his leadership, 80,000 insurgents fought and lost the battle of Calderon Bridge on January 17, 1811. Although a larger number than their loyalist opponents, the insurgents were poorly armed while the loyalists had cannon fire which they used to kill some and disperse the remaining insurgents (Knight 299). The defeat against the insurgents were however not on the battle fields alone; as Knight notes, in addition to recruiting supporters, the loyalists also propagandised the insurgency portraying them as selfish and insensitive to the common good (299). As a result of the propagandas, the insurgency was denounced by the religious community, the insurgent leaders were excommunicated, and even landlords encouraged their tenants to join the loyalist army (Knight 299). This was no different from what happened elsewhere in the world. Notably however, the insurgency was not an integrated or cohesive movement; rather, there were contradictions in the insurgency although the need to seek solutions to their collective grievances remained an autonomous objective. The divisions made it very hard for the insurgents to form a united front. The insurgents suffered a major loss when Father Hidalgo was captured and executed by loyalists who had formed local militias to counter the rising threat of insurgency on March 21, 1811 (Tutino 227). Unlike the insurgents, the loyalists had a unity of purpose which was to prevent the insurgents from spreading the rebellious message any further. After Hidalgo’s death, it became apparent among the insurgents that they needed to form an organised military and political movement, and although there were many false starts, Ignacio Rayon and Jose Maria Morelos organised new forces which renewed hope in the insurgency (Archer 93). In 1815, Jose Morelos was captured and executed, and just like Miguel Hidalgo, he had several victories, most of which related to harassing loyalists. Morelos had successfully led the insurgents to defeat loyalists in the March 1812 battle of Cuaulta where the loyalist army had laid a siege for them. Morelos and his troops broke through the siege and took over several towns in Acapulco and Oaxaca (Hamnett 113). The loyalist army led by Felix Calleja effectively controlled the rebellion, and although the rebels occupied several cities, they were not able to fully capture them. After Jose Morelos’s death, two of his lieutenants (Vicente Guerro and Guadalupe Victoria) became the rebels’ leaders (Hamnett 114). They led the rebellion against Spain, and when New Spain eventually became Mexico, Guadalupe Victoria became its first president, while Vincente Guerrero became the second president. Under their leadership however, the insurgency was noticeably inactive, and although they had a large followership from the majority poor, they faced strong resistance from the middle class. The dramatic change in New Spain however came in 1820 when Agustin de Iturbide, who was by then a loyalist general, changed allegiances to support the insurgents (Restall and Lane 275). His desertion of the loyal camp was motivated by incidents that were happening in both Spain and Mexico; where some sections of the society desired liberal reforms, while the conservative side wanted to avoid reforms. Iturbide successfully convinced the loyalist army to back him as he declared himself the emperor of Mexico. He was however overthrown by Santa Ann, and after a year, Guadalupe became the first elected Mexican president. In 1827, Spain unsuccessfully attempted to reclaim Mexico in the battle of Tampico (Morris 182). Under the leadership of Santa Anna, the 1500-man Mexican army defeated a 3000-man army from Spain which had attacked with the intention of removing the Mexican government from power. Conclusion This research essay has established that the imperial crisis that occurred in New Spain, occasioned by French’s occupation, laid the ground work for insurgents to pursue the independence of Mexico. Napoleon Bonaparte’s and the French army’s occupation of New Spain brought about a new awakening among the masses that they needed to work toward reclaiming their independence, their rulers and liberties. Initially, and as indicated herein, the insurgents were divided and this jeopardised their chances of acting collectively and winning against the loyalists. It would also appear that the loyalists had a powerful propaganda outfit which enabled them to marshal support from the middle class and the religious groupings. Religion had a vital spiritual and leadership mandate among New Spaniards, and could discourage people from joining the insurgency group. Consequently, the insurgents lost some of the supporters it would otherwise have had. The fact that the loyalists had a better equipped army also worked against the objectives of the insurgents. Despite all the challenges they faced, and under different leaders, the insurgents managed to stage a good fight; they won some battles and lost others. They also managed to communicate their dissatisfaction with French occupation and it is the knowledge that Agustin de Iturbide had about the needs and preferences of the insurgents that enabled him to negotiate for the Mexican independence. Works Cited Archer, Christon, I. The Birth of Modern Mexico, 1780-1824. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. Print. Beezley, William and Michael Meyer. The Oxford History of Mexico. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print. Foster, Lynn V. A Brief History of Mexico. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2007. Print. Gorelick, Robert E. “Wars of National Liberation: Jus Ad Bellum.” Case W. Res. J. Int’l L. 11.1 (1979): 71-80. Guedea, Virginia. “The Process of Mexican Independence.” The American Historical Review 105.1 (2001): 116-130. Hamnett, Brian R. A concise History of Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print. Knight, Alan. Mexico: Volume 2, The Colonial Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Print. Morris, Charles. The Story of Mexico. New York: Heritage History, 1914. Print. Restall, Mathew and Kris Lane. Latin America in Colonial Times, volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print. Tutino, John. From insurrection to Revolution in Mexico: Social Bases of Agrarian Violence, 1750-1940. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Read More

This situation marked the beginning of polarisation among New Spaniards. After the coup, most of the opposition to the regime was done in secret, and in one such case of secrecy was the conspiracy that was discovered in Valladolid city in 1809. The foregoing discovery was made by the colonial authorities hence making them afraid that discontent expressed in the discovered communication would spread. To prevent that from happening, the colonial authorities used repression to those who opposed the imperial rule, bit as Guedea notes, the repression only “exacerbated the differences between the defenders of the status quo and the autonomists” (119).

It was after the 1810 discovery of two conspiracies (one in Queretaro City and another in the Bajio region) that an insurrection led by Father Miguel Hidalgo took place. Father Hidalgo led the insurrection with the aim of combating bad government, and to “defend the realm, the king, and the Catholic religion from the French” (Guedea 119). Under his leadership, 80,000 insurgents fought and lost the battle of Calderon Bridge on January 17, 1811. Although a larger number than their loyalist opponents, the insurgents were poorly armed while the loyalists had cannon fire which they used to kill some and disperse the remaining insurgents (Knight 299).

The defeat against the insurgents were however not on the battle fields alone; as Knight notes, in addition to recruiting supporters, the loyalists also propagandised the insurgency portraying them as selfish and insensitive to the common good (299). As a result of the propagandas, the insurgency was denounced by the religious community, the insurgent leaders were excommunicated, and even landlords encouraged their tenants to join the loyalist army (Knight 299). This was no different from what happened elsewhere in the world.

Notably however, the insurgency was not an integrated or cohesive movement; rather, there were contradictions in the insurgency although the need to seek solutions to their collective grievances remained an autonomous objective. The divisions made it very hard for the insurgents to form a united front. The insurgents suffered a major loss when Father Hidalgo was captured and executed by loyalists who had formed local militias to counter the rising threat of insurgency on March 21, 1811 (Tutino 227).

Unlike the insurgents, the loyalists had a unity of purpose which was to prevent the insurgents from spreading the rebellious message any further. After Hidalgo’s death, it became apparent among the insurgents that they needed to form an organised military and political movement, and although there were many false starts, Ignacio Rayon and Jose Maria Morelos organised new forces which renewed hope in the insurgency (Archer 93). In 1815, Jose Morelos was captured and executed, and just like Miguel Hidalgo, he had several victories, most of which related to harassing loyalists.

Morelos had successfully led the insurgents to defeat loyalists in the March 1812 battle of Cuaulta where the loyalist army had laid a siege for them. Morelos and his troops broke through the siege and took over several towns in Acapulco and Oaxaca (Hamnett 113). The loyalist army led by Felix Calleja effectively controlled the rebellion, and although the rebels occupied several cities, they were not able to fully capture them. After Jose Morelos’s death, two of his lieutenants (Vicente Guerro and Guadalupe Victoria) became the rebels’ leaders (Hamnett 114).

They led the rebellion against Spain, and when New Spain eventually became Mexico, Guadalupe Victoria became its first president, while Vincente Guerrero became the second president. Under their leadership however, the insurgency was noticeably inactive, and although they had a large followership from the majority poor, they faced strong resistance from the middle class. The dramatic change in New Spain however came in 1820 when Agustin de Iturbide, who was by then a loyalist general, changed allegiances to support the insurgents (Restall and Lane 275).

Read More