Why Spanish America was Fragmented into Many Countries

INTRODUCTION

After navigating across the Atlantic Ocean Christopher Columbus was able to see an island in the Bahamas, he thought that he had arrived in Asia. This significant event, backed by the Catholic Kings of Spain, Isabella and Ferdinand, directed to establish a sea route to the wealth of Asia marking the beginning of an age of exploration with historical consequences. Columbus’ voyage^[i] not only set the eyes of the world for the conquest of lands, but also created a huge competition among European nations competing for control over these recently discovered lands.

If we look at any map, it is more than clear that the legacy of Spain and Portugal, after the invasion and conquest of America, continues to this day. Not only are their languages still the most widely spoken in the region, their influence established a common religion and an idea of the new elite, and even guided the construction of cities.

But perhaps what calls our attention are the borders that were created, with a Portuguese America that remained united despite the passage of time, but unfortunately that doesn’t happen in its Spanish counterpart, that was fragmented into many countries. A number of experts in Latin American history agreed that the process included several factors, from education to Napoleon’s invasions.

It was the year of 1494 and the Catholic kings of Spain and Portugal signed an agreement in Tordesillas in which they literally divided up the world to be discovered. This gave way to the installation of their new government in the new territories and that is where the first difference was born, according to Mexican historian Alfredo Avila Rueda of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). America is big, very big, but in the Portuguese fraction most of the population was concentrated in coastal cities, while in the other portion the distance between cities was tremendous^[ii].

In addition, the viceroyalties (New Spain, Peru, Río de la Plata and New Granada) comprised large territories administered locally, but loyal to Spain and with little contact between them.

And also, the installation of captaincies in Venezuela, Guatemala, Chile and Quito only served to deepen the separation of colonial governments^[iii]. We could say that the protagonists in our history are the formation of elites, education and ideology. On the other hand, Spanish America, with its ideological diversity, faces the new way of thinking of the Enlightenment, while Brazil, with its entrenched monarchical influence, follows the conservative currents^[iv].

Another important theme was the handling of slavery, because it reveals many differences in Latin America and Brazil, which affected the social dynamics and however left a lasting scar on the creation of each region. The most important moments of independence were marked by power vacuums and also by emancipation movements that lead them through a path of challenges and struggles, which over time were revealing dreams of unification and fragmentation that formed the political map of these lands.

After the encounter with the New World, the exploration and colonization resulted in a mix of cultures, conflicts and even the creation of completely different new identities. Spanish America and Brazil, in particular, were influenced by different colonial strategies than Spain and Portugal, which led them to a historical inequality.

 I. DISCOVERY OF THE NEW WORLD: Conquest and Discovery Race

Since the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494^[v], the dominions of Spain and Portugal were clearly divided along a predetermined border. the land to the east of this imaginary line belonged to Portugal, and the land to the west of it would be claimed by Spain. This agreement was negotiated by the pope, to keep the peace between two rival Catholic powers.^[vi].

Although the size of Brazil increased considerably, it was surprising how the two powers respected the border limits established by the treaty. For the most part, this border was maintained, and it was for that reason that Portugal colonized a large part of northeastern South America that remained on its side of the Treaty of Tordesillas. That portion of land, which would later become Brazil, became the first country in the world to be colonized by Portugal^[vii].

The way in which Spain and Portugal ran their colonies has had far-reaching consequences for Brazil and Spanish America to this day. The Brazilian experience was much more centrist as it was run directly by the Portuguese crown^[viii]. The Spanish lands had much more localized systems, in which viceroyalties and captaincies acted with some kind of autonomy.

This avoided the formation of a geographical entity as centralized as Brazil and allowed the creation of a bureaucracy as elaborate as in Spanish America, out of which appeared a new ruling megabloc, that of mestizos^[ix] governments^[x].

In Brazil, the Portuguese state had more success in imposing a centralized model on its exterior territories. Nevertheless, the centralizing tendencies promoted much local resistance, and moved severe tensions. Some remote colonial administrators found themselves challenged by the administration at Lisbon, which had different opinions and understandings about the individual regions. Although only representing the first step in the establishment of the modern Brazilian state, the centralized approach remained with some defects, and the inequality legacy of state-building in the pre-independence period that continues to influence politics to this day^[xi].

Spanish America’s decentralized system certainly had its problems, and the central state was often weak. But, given a level of local self-determination, it had the capacity to adapt to local conditions. With the work of information between the captaincy and colony, there were less problems between the two, and the lack of loyalist soldiers that were not paid to take sides reflected a more sensible policy on how to govern by the elites. Moreover, an administration of different levels, inspired unique regional identities and in general, respect for the Spanish colonial state. However, the Portuguese model consolidated his domain, but was characterized by greater political repression, including the dark legacy of dependency on slave labor^[xii].

II.THE COLONIAL ADMINISTRATION: governance and decentralization models

The nature of the elites were important because they determined the identity of Brazil and Spanish America, but this was not just a thing of the past, because it influenced the subsequent history,  with serious consequences. Brazil had no local universities until 1808^[xiii], and this limited the composition of its elite, and to the members of a tiny number of families. These men were educated by the Universities of Portugal, which were very close to the monarchy for historical reasons^[xiv]. Portugal was a kingdom closely tied to its monarchy, which shaped the nature of its elites and ultimately influenced Brazil’s identity. This historical connection had lasting effects that reverberated in later events. Unlike Spanish America, where the presence of numerous secular universities fostered enlightened ideas and concepts of nation building, Brazil lacked local universities until 1808. Therefore, the composition of the Brazilian elite was limited to a small number of families, educated mainly by the universities of Portugal, historically aligned with the monarchy. This proximity to the monarchy laid the foundation for the deep loyalty to the monarch that characterized Brazil from its inception until its eventual fall.^[xv]

The Creole elites entered independence debates, as they were called in Spanish America, having lived the ideas of the Enlightenment and many other ideas^[xvi]; as I said, They addressed themselves with all their energy to common ideas and arguments.

 The Iberian American tradition preserved Indian and African elements, but it also added many European ideas into this mix, some more progressive than others. The independence movements carried all these ideas with them in a way, with their consequences, and they were more complex to teach to people without much learning^[xvii].

Because of their educational formation in the monarchic tradition and their relationship to the mother country, the Brazilian elites built their approach to the struggle for autonomy in a way that they created their own destiny in a political and social space that Sometimes they remembered their country (Portugal), to which they had been linked.

III. ELITE TRANSFORMATION: education, ideology and identity construction

The way that slavery was organized in Spanish America and Brazil meant that the social dynamics and identities that were created in each of these regions were not the same.

An example of this was the contrast in the management of slavery in each of the territories. The only common aspects would be the harshness of slavery, and the bloody power of the dynamics who governed the exploitation of slave peoples by the dominant side^[xviii].

This would mold the daily experiences of slave societies, and that would affect the course of South America and Brazil’s respective future. In some parts of Brazil, like in the South or in the urban areas, the control would be so rigid that the popular resistance of slaves would be almost impossible. Most of these areas were run as slave societies, with a high number of slaves. Case in point is the sugar plantations or the coffee plantations. In those, it would be almost the norm that in the best-case scenarios free and slave people of different races would enter in contact only for business, and in the worst-case scenarios, for intense violence. Such a scenario also highlighted the complex social realities and race relations of colonial society. The way in which slavery was organized then, did not just affect the way every segment of society related to each other, but shaped the way in which different categories of people formed their own understandings of their own identities^[xix].

In Spanish America, where slavery was more equitably distributed, there were social tensions, but also more possibilities for creating communities which included slaves. The tactics of slavery in Spanish America were more fluid partly because the social world, the policies were intended to be regulated in a more complex way^[xx].

Nevertheless, the management of slavery in Spanish America produced, in some cases, communities that were more socially integrated. Moreover, the struggles to abolish slavery seemed to have had important effects in the creation of the configuration of socio ethnic networks. Therefore, emancipation and slaves’ movements created, first in Brazil and, later on, in Spanish America, conceptual and social innovations about identity and social relations that contaminated the subsequent history of ideas and structure of postcolonial society^[xxi].

lV. SOCIAL TRANSFORMATIONS, POST-INDEPENDENCE EFFECTS

Restructuring of the class system

In Latin America, independence opened the possibility of rethinking pre-existing social relations and marked the decline of the class system left over from the colonial era. The abolition of colonial regimes made possible social mobility that challenged traditional hierarchies. Although not free of tensions, this mobility recruited diverse social groups to seek a new space in the new political configuration. The formation of Creole^[xxii] elites and the birth of a middle class contributed to transforming the structure of society. In Brazil, The presence of the constitutional monarchy measured the persistence of some aspects of the social system. However, changes in the system occurred due to independence and challenges in the class structure, especially among the elites and popular classes. The transition to a post-colonial society brought to the debates in the foreground about equality and the struggle for independence, and also brought with it a deep desire to invent political systems that would allow the people to participate in the decision making process. This stage was characterized by the drafting of new fundamental laws and the exploration of political models that expressed the ambitions of society.

In Latin America, dialogues on political action had to dialogue with the Enlightenment. The variability of the principles of the Creole elites influenced the organization of political systems that, in some cases, helped the creation of democratic societies^[xxiii]. In Brazil, the constitutional monarchy played a role in this process; However, there were also controversies around political action and the performance of the people. However, these changes had to face challenges and rebellions.

In this way, the post-independence period was characterized by the tension between social groups and power and struggles to define itself as a nation. The social movements as a force to demand their rights, starting from abolition of slavery to gender and civil rights movements. From this the African-American women, indigenous people, and other groups that were on the edge of society, were the ones who searched Redefine the structure and patterns and thus be able to demand their participation in the establishment of a new state order.^[xxiv]

Independence not only reshaped social and political structures, but also influenced the construction of national identity. The search for their own identity independent of colonial influences led them to the revaluation and promotion of indigenous cultural elements. In both cases, the construction of a national narrative became a very important tool to help consolidate social and political consistency in the years after independence.

V. THE REBELLION

In 1821, the Iguala movement, led by Agustín de Iturbide, marked the break between Spain and New Spain, as well as the ties that sustained the power of the Spanish Empire. However, Mexico’s independence, declared in 1821, was the result of years of revolution. This process of rupture began with Napoleon’s invasion of Spain.

The rebellion that took place on May 2 1808 in Madrid, which faced suppression by Napoleon’s forces marked the beginning of the Spanish War of Independence. The French invasion led to King Charles IV and his son Ferdinand VII stepping down in favor of Napoleon’s brother Joseph, who later assumed the title of Joseph I of Spain. This shift in power resulted in a period of uncertainty. Despite this various governing bodies in the colonies resisted Napoleon’s authority. Remained firmly loyal to their autonomy and to Ferdinand VII^[xxv].

After the return of the monarch to the throne, attempts were made to force the colonies into submission by extortive means, but the growing experience of self-government among the Creoles, aggravated by the discriminatory policies of the Spanish Crown towards them, together with the influence of the Enlightenment ideals popularized by the American and French revolutions, ignited rebellions that led to bloody wars of independence throughout the continent between 1809 and 1826.

The transition of power within the monarchy provoked movements for independence in the colonies. Instead following Napoleon’s defeat João VI established the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil with Rio de Janeiro as its capital until it was mandatory to return to Lisbon in 1820 and embrace a constitution. João VI left his son Pedro in charge of the government of Brazil. Pedro declared the independence of Brazil on September 7, 1822, and became a constitutional monarch with the title of Emperor^[xxvi].

Slave Rebellions throughout the continent

The economic and social issues also help explain why Brazil never split apart. By the time Brazilian independence took place, the landowners and richer areas of men in the cities had voluntarily accepted the center which existed for two reasons: the threat of social disorder and the fact that monarchical authority had a certain legitimacy, says Richard Graham, an American historian and an expert on Latin America. According to him, if they weren’t forced into union by an overpowering central government in Rio de Janeiro, the regional leaders of Brazil were never completely happy with the arrangements and they wanted to be freer from the capital^[xxvii]. They would have preferred greater self-government or independence, says Graham. But they thought that self-government or independence might make it more difficult to control the slaves and the less wealthy classes; in other words, that prevented social disorder. I think people realized if the slaves ran away from their plantations, they would have to go and get them^[xxviii], an effort by various institutions, to catalogue slave trade voyages across the Atlantic says that if one adds all the slaves that entered Hispano-America adding from 1500 to 1875, these add up to 1.3 million. In the same period, close to 5 million landed in Brazil alone. No other place in the world ever got that many slaves, he said^[xxix].

The Haitian Revolution would not only affect neighboring Caribbean societies, its consequences would also be felt in Brazil, as well as in the small European colonies of northeastern South America. The disappearance of the world’s leading producer of sugar and coffee gave renewed impetus to the slave plantation regime in these other regions towards the end of the 18th century^[xxx].

Cuba and Puerto Rico had to produce sugar for Spain, and also to supply the colonies on the continent. A constant and copious flow of slaves landed on both islands until the mid-19th century. Few, however, reached the Spanish mainland.^[xxxi]

The European conquest did not immediately result in the massive importation of African slave labor into the New World. The existence of at least 20 to 25 million Indians in the conquered lands seemed to indicate that the Europeans would have an abundant supply of workers for the exploitation of their colonies. In Europe, on the other hand, the population was growing considerably, and the migrations of its poorest inhabitants could have contributed to satisfy the demand for labor overseas. Notwithstanding these options, America became the great market in the Pacific^[xxxii].

Vl. THE RICE OF THE NEW COUNTRIES

The road to independence was long and complicated for Latin America. On the one hand, the Spanish American colonial administration boards retained total control due to internal resistance to Napoleon’s imposition, so that the fight for autonomy would end up being long and persistent^[xxxiii].

While the Catholic kings of Spain would remain in Spain during the Napoleonic invasion, Brazil, under Joao IV, left for Brazil, thus creating a relatively stable transition, as they decided to move to Brazil and not stay in Portugal, which in my opinion, was the main and most important reason for the union of the colony.

The wars of independence lasted from 1809 until 1826, forming the states we know today and drawing the border lines. The Spanish American independence movements had both an internal and external component, since there were not only political struggles, but also internal ones.

In Brazil, while the Portuguese royal family was in Rio de Janeiro, there were hardly any military wars against the mother country, but there were the same regional struggles^[xxxiv] and political struggles that shaped the form of government that the country would eventually decide to follow.

Vll. HISPANO-AMERICA REVOLUTIONS

Most of the revolutions for independence in Spanish America were violent and universal. When Spain fell to Napoleon’s forces in 1808 it controlled an empire spanning from California to Cape Horn and, from the Orinoco River to the Pacific Ocean. The empire consisted of four viceroyalties^[xxxv], and was home to seventeen million people. However fifteen years later Spain only retained control over Cuba and Puerto Rico as new nations emerged^[xxxvi]. The independence of Latin America was not an event but the result of a gradual process where the region embraced its unique identity, culture and resources. The Creoles preferred being called Americans than citizens indicating a deep rooted sense of resentment towards Spain. This shift also insinuated at conflicting loyalties among the Americans who began questioning their allegiance while acknowledging ties to the crown and Spain. The fragmentation in Spanish America post independence raised some questions about why the borders did not align with those of the viceroyalties^[xxxvii].

We are used to thinking that the Viceroyalty of New Spain was left as a single country, because Mexico appeared. We don’t remember that it was then followed by the Mexican Empire, which already incorporated today’s Central America. In view of the disintegration of the Mexican Empire, and then appeared then itself Mexico, and the federation of Central America, but then both federations disintegrated into other states^[xxxviii] .

Similarly, quoting Avila Rueda, “there was a process of fragmentation throughout Latin America” Some of these provinces formed confederations to have greater military strength and be able to defend themselves against other enemies, and others joined together by force, like Simón Bolívar, for example: If you become independent from Spain, why would you want to be subject to the mandates and excesses of, for example, Buenos Aires? The current borders of Latin American countries took time to consolidate and, in many cases, were the result of internal disputes after independence.

Vlll. DREAMS OF UNIFICATION

The Vision and the Reality

Between their struggle for independence, leaders such as Simón Bolívar and José de San Martín already had visions of a united South America^[xxxix]. In the abstract, It seemed an achievable goal, although even then Bolívar’s vision called for a federation of republics, while San Martín believed it would be possible and desirable to return the region to monarchy under a European king. But in the end, neither approach worked and Latin America remained fragmented. Forces both external and internal prohibited the unification^[xl].

Challenges to Unification

Certainly, Bolívar’s vision presented South Americans with insurmountable difficulties. Although common threats to regional security were evident, citizens and elites alike did not feel any common bond. Several regional domains such as Peru, Mexico and Brazil, among others. In fact, the desire for regional security would have required an effective military body that none of the regional states wanted to recognize or finance.

In Brazil, the transition to independence through constitutional monarchy avoided the development of deeper conflicts. Despite this, the new nation was not without challenges. The regional diversity and internal conflicts which had created the need for independence in the first place, remained and would prevent the construction of a new nation with a unified identity.^[xli] This was aggravated by the fact that Brazil, like Spanish America, was fragmented geographically and culturally, making it difficult to find a strong unifying force. In Spanish In the Americas, it was evident that the population was deeply divided, making it difficult to unite under a single leader. Boundaries between independent states were frequently marred by disputes, reflecting internal conflicts. Similarly, in Brazil and throughout Latin America, the diverse cultural and social differences among the population posed significant challenges to unity and governance. Only through time and great effort can a strong national identity be created and the search for a national identity will always meet challenges. In Brazil, the historical backgrounds of different regions in Brazil were so different that unity was difficult, despite the stability of the monarchy, regional contradictions were also reflected, and it was very difficult to build an unchanging concept of collective identity^[xlii].

The legacy of fragmentation is still evident today and informs the political, social and cultural realities across the Spanish Americas and Brazil. Regional differences remain a central fact of life, having given rise to cultural diversity and strong local identities. Understanding this legacy will help us make sense of the sophistication of the contemporary in both regions.

lX. CONCLUSION: Diversity and Unity in the Historical Legacy

In the conclusion of this historical analysis of Spanish America and Brazil, it is now evident that the history of the region is so rich, yet so intertwined.

In the 16th century, when Christopher Columbus embarked on a voyage that would forever change the course of history and the world, he never imagined that his discovery would create the union of two totally different worlds, when he mistakenly thought he had arrived in East Asia, thus starting an era of exploration and colonization that would completely change the landscapes and traditions of these territories.

Rivalries between nations, as seen in the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494, created the basis for different paths between Spanish America and Brazil. This treaty established the limits of Spanish and Portuguese influence, determining the development of these regions and fostering their identities.

In the different forms of governing the colonies, the centralized government of Portugal in Brazil and the decentralized administration of Spanish America, had a significant influence on the configuration of these lands. The role played by the elites and slavery also influenced the creation of the social and cultural identities of each region.

The Enlightenment and other intellectual movements influenced Spanish America, creating debates about the type of society that should emerge after independence.

In Brazil, on the other hand, the smooth shift towards independence within the monarchy had an impact on the formation of political and social frameworks. The changes and evolution of this period influenced the political systems that arose after independence.

Now with all this said, I can say that Latin America and Brazil share a rich history, but also a complex one in terms of diversity and unity. Despite the differences, these regions share a historical legacy that has influenced their identity and development in the 21st century.

I would like to conclude with an extra reflection on the opinion of Octavio Paz and Samuel Ramos. They try to get inside the Mexican psyche, exploring themes such as loneliness, inferiority and the masks people put on to walk through life. They highlight how historical, cultural and political events shaped Mexican identity, often leading to feelings of inadequacy and a constant search for validation^[xliii].

Their reflections help our understanding of diversity and unity in Spanish America. By examining the internal struggles and social pressures faced by Mexicans, we gain a deeper answer about the complexities of identity formation.

On the one hand Samuel Ramos in his work El Perfil del Hombre y la Cultura en México and on the other Octavio Paz’s interpretation of the Mexican psyche in El Laberinto de la Soledad, add to the understanding of our exploration of Mexican identity. Samuel Ramos describes how there is a Mexican sense of inferiority, which has its roots in self-denigration, and which has been shaped by political and social events throughout Mexican history. This sense of incompleteness and perpetual emptiness, as Ramos describes, connects to the Mexican’s tendency to seek validation through violence and the assertion of masculinity, as discussed in Paz’s reflection on the phrase “No te rajes.”

This need to protect oneself behind an emotional mask, as Octavio Paz mentions, made me realize the existence of a wound, which has been caused mostly by the various historical abuses that the country has suffered.

From the “tlatoanis” who abused their subordinates to the various invasions, looting, and robberies that the country has suffered throughout its history, that and a problem of “hidden racism” that exists in Mexico, caused mainly by difference of social classes or physical appearance, has shown this great identity problem that has existed in the country, and the need to cover up and pretend to avoid being hurt^[xliv].

It is important to say that history must be understood not just as a set of past events, but also as something that has shaped our understanding of the present. How these two regions are different and come together allows us to understand how the history, identity and future of these nations were shaped.

^[i] The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, Columbus Reports on his First Voyage, NY 2013. https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/columbus-reports-his-first-voyage-1493

^[ii] Ávila Rueda, Entender Mejor la Independencia de México, requiere una historia global, Gobierno de México, Secretaría de Cultura, 2013, cap. 1

^[iii]Ávila Rueda, ¿Historia para qué?/ Ecos de Historia, UNAM, 1980, cap. 4

^[iv] La América Española, Capitanías Generales, may 2020, https://laamericaespanyola.com/2020/05/21/capitanias-generales/#:~:text=Las%20Capitan%C3%ADas%20Generales%20en%20la,con%20categor%C3%ADa%20de%20capit%C3%A1n%20general.

^[v] Unesco.org, memory of the world, treaty of Tordesillas

^[vi] Captivating History, Historia de América Latina, una guía fascinante de la historia de sudamérica, México, Centroamérica y las Islas del Caribe, 2022,  48-50.

^[vii] Captivating History, Historia de América Latina, una guía fascinante de la historia de sudamérica, México, Centroamérica y las Islas del Caribe, 2022, pp. 48-52.

^[viii] Captivating History, Historia de América Latina, una guía fascinante de la historia de sudamérica, México, Centroamérica y las Islas del Caribe, 2022, pp. 50-52

^[ix] (in Latin America) a man of mixed race, especially one having Spanish and indigenous descent.

^[x]Catherine Walsh,  “RAZA”, MESTIZAJE Y PODER: Horizontes Coloniales Pasados Y Presentes Antología del pensamiento crítico ecuatoriano contemporáneo, 2018, pp. 411-436

^[xi]Ministério das Relações Exteriores do Brasil, Descubrimiento y Colonización, Descubrimientos Portugueses,2022, https://www.gov.br/mre/pt-br/embaixada-bogota/datos-sobre-brasil/historia

^[xii]John Lynch, The Spanish American Revolutions, editorial Ariel, 1808-1826, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, Londres pp. 10-19.

^[xiii]La Real Universidad de Guadalajara, Enciclopedia Histórica y Biográfica, Tomo primero, 1791 – 1821, chapter 1, http://enciclopedia.udg.mx/periodos-historicos/la-real-universidad-de-guadalajara-1791-1821.

^[xiv]La Real Universidad de Guadalajara, Enciclopedia Histórica y Biográfica, Tomo primero, 1791 – 1821, chapter 3, http://enciclopedia.udg.mx/periodos-historicos/la-real-universidad-de-guadalajara-1791-1821.

^[xv]Claudia Aves,  Ejército y educación en el Brasil del siglo XVl, UDEA, 2008

^[xvi] Graham, Richard, Independence in Latin America, Contrast and Comparison, University of Texas, press. 2013,pp. 25-27.

^[xvii] Bernal Díaz del Castillo, Historia verdadera de la Conquista de la Nueva España, tomo I, México,

Porrúa, 1955, p. 266- 320.

^[xviii] Alex Sala, Palizas y Torturas, las Secuelas que la Esclavitud dejó en los Esqueletos en México, National Geographic 2023,  https://historia.nationalgeographic.com.es/a/palizas-y-torturas-las-secuelas-que-la-esclavitud-dejo-en-los-esqueletos-en-mexico_15305

^[xix] Joshua J. Mark, Esclavitud en la América Colonial, World History Encyclopedia, 2021, https://www.worldhistory.org/trans/es/2-1739/esclavitud-en-la-america-colonial/

^[xx] Extracted from Walsh, C. 2010 “Raza”, mestizaje y poder: horizontes coloniales

“Pasados y presentes” en Crítica y emancipación (Buenos Aires: CLACSO) Nº 3.

^[xxi] Graham, Richard. Independence in Latin America: Contrasts and Comparisons, University of Texas Press, 2013. pp. 25-35

^[xxii] During the colonization of the Americas, the term “Creole” referred to people of European descent who were born in the Americas

^[xxiii] The American Historical Review, Vol. 106, No. 4 (Oct., 2001), pp. 1290-1315, Published By: Oxford University Press

^[xxiv] Ministerio de Educación 2009, Montalvo, J. 1942, Los indios, en Montalvo (México: Secretaría de

Educación Pública).

^[xxv] Real Academia de la Historia, 2 de mayo de 1808, https://www.rah.es/2-de-mayo-de-1808/

^[xxvi]Britannica, The editors of Encyclopedia. Independence of Brazil, Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014, https://www.britannica.com/place/Brazil/Independence

^[xxvii] Metcalf, Alida, et al. “Reflections on Brazil and Life as a Historian: An Interview with Richard Graham.” The Americas, vol. 68, no. 1, 2011, pp. 97–114. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41239140.

^[xxviii] Graham, Richard. Independence in Latin America: Contrasts and Comparisons, University of Texas Press, 2013.

^[xxix] Tamara Simo, Crónica de la esclavitud en América, UCSD, 2006.

^[xxx] Metcalf, Alida, et al. “Reflections on Brazil and Life as a Historian: An Interview with Richard Graham.” The Americas, vol. 68, no. 1, 2011, pp. 97–114. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41239140.

^[xxxi] Klein, Herbert S., and Ben Vinson. ESCLAVITUD Y PLANTACIÓN EN BRASIL Y LAS GUYANAS.  Historia Mínima de La Esclavitud En América Latina y En El Caribe, Colegio de Mexico, 2013, pp. 129–50.

^[xxxii] Klein, Herbert S., and Ben Vinson. LA ESCLAVITUD AFRICANA EN LATINOAMÉRICA. Historia Mínima de La      Esclavitud En América Latina y En El Caribe, Colegio de Mexico, 2013, pp. 31–68.

^[xxxiii] Revista da Escola Superior de Guerra do Brasil, n. 80, p. 19-30, May. 2022

^[xxxiv] Revista da Escola Superior de Guerra do Brasil, n. 80, p. 39-48, May. 2022

^[xxxv] Sacoto, A. 1989 “Montalvo y el pensamiento latinoamericano del

siglo XIX” en Coloquio internacional sobre Juan Montalvo

(Quito: Fundación Friedrich Naumann)

^[xxxvi] John Lynch, The Spanish American Revolutions, editorial Ariel, 1808-1826, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, Londres pp. 10-13.

^[xxxvii]John Lynch, The Spanish American Revolutions, editorial Ariel, 1808-1826, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, Londres pp. 8-13.

^[xxxviii] Ávila Rueda, Entender Mejor la Independencia de México, requiere una historia global, Gobierno de México, Secretaría de Cultura, 2020.

^[xxxix] Escat Julieta, El Encuentro de San Martín y Simón Bolivar, 1er ciclo, efemérides, 2023

^[xl] Francisco Javier Caballero Harriet, El sueño latinoamericano: la esperanza en el futuro, Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (España)

^[xli] Metcalf, Alida, et al. “Reflections on Brazil and Life as a Historian: An Interview with Richard Graham.” The Americas, vol. 68, no. 1, 2011, pp. 97–114. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41239140.

^[xlii] Graham, Richard. Independence in Latin America: Contrasts and Comparisons, University of Texas Press, 2013 pp. 50-55.

^[xliii] Hoy, Terry. Octavio Paz: The Search for Mexican Identity. The Review of Politics, vol. 44, no. 3, 1982, pp. 370–85, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1407050.

^[xliv] Revista Humanum, La Identidad Mexicana en Samuel Ramos y Octavio Paz, 2018, pp. 1-8