Across the history of America, there was lots of dispute about whether or not the Americans may rightfully refer to themselves by this name. The process of acquiring independence in Latin America started with the concept of “popular sovereignty” which required determining who can be called “Sovereign People.” Everybody who lived in Latin America (Americanos and every citizen of the independent states) could theoretically be referred to as sovereign. Creating social programs, in turn, required leaders of independence movements to face the social reality that included a significant number of different components that formed the label of “Americanos.” Therefore, the need to address this social reality arose when independence leaders tried to apply their political projects. The successfulness of independence leaders in implementing these projects and their ability to put “popular sovereignty” into practice will be the focus of this paper.
Social Complexity Influence
Popular Sovereignty might only be completed into a theory when the term Sovereign People is defined (Chasteen, 4). Identifying Sovereign People, in turn, would also mean defining the whole nation. Therefore, the Sovereign People concept included people of indigenous, African, and mixed descent. This resulted in a number of problems. Most importantly, this affected the independence leaders’ ability to promote the social programs they wanted to apply. There was no simple way to use a particular program to all of the nations labeled as the Sovereign People. Each individual nation had its own cultural practices, customs, and peculiarities. There was simply no way to apply the programs to all of the Sovereign People.
This kind of social complexity resulted in the need to adjust every program so that it would include people from various cultures and cover their needs and obligations. Therefore, independence leaders were facing a serious obstacle whenever the need to develop and apply any program arose.
“The Americanos followed the U.S. example, embodying popular sovereignty in a written constitution produced by a nationally elected constituent assembly” (Chasteen, 3). However, the constitution created by the americanos’ leaders was different from that of the US mainly because it required a lot of nations to be taken into account. As mentioned above, those nations included a lot of different descendants which naturally created a need to broaden the constitution template to cover everybody’s needs. Once more the example of social complexity affecting independence leaders’ decisions is clearly seen.
Spanish-American independence leaders and jurists supposed that the Americans might represent a significant historical force. However, over the course of decades, the two constitutive elements of the American political power became highly disputed in the Americanos’ community. Individual rights were seen as absolute in contrast to territorial sovereignty and establishing common good. The US policy, on the other hand, held these concepts in reverse. American politicians believed that individual rights are inherent and are not to be alienated. Those rights were put to the protection of the public administration.
Therefore, there was a serious problem of applying the concept of popular sovereignty to the Latin American situation regarding independence. Nevertheless, this issue was eventually resolved, and independence leaders began to use the idea of sovereignty to pursue both national and personal goals. Most of them, however, saw their goal as setting Latin America free from Europeans and Americans. They believed that this land rightfully belongs to the so-called americanos. They also believed that the word “americanos” is crucial to use since it divides non-white Americans from their European and White American counterparts.
Putting “Popular Sovereignty” into Practice
However, not every independence leader intended to maintain the sovereignty of Americanos. After the Spanish resistance collapsed under Napoleon’s aggression in 1810, americano rebels started forming caretaker juntas which were aimed at home ruling while the apparent royal authority was absent (Chasteen, 65). They explained that by the fact that the authority of Fernando VII relied on two factors: Spain and America. While first of these collapsed, the second did not and was, therefore, a cause for which to fight. The majority of America’s people – Spanish-Americans, Indians, mestizos, and pardos, swore to be loyal to Fernando VII. They were mostly sincere in their oaths even though there were some amongst them that raged against europeos.
Thus, the popular sovereignty was claimed by the people. They stated that America belongs to Americanos which meant that it belongs to the people of various descents excluding white Americans. New juntas began to establish by the radicals who, in fact, wanted to form new republics that would be similar to those of the United States.
Therefore, it is evident that at least some independence leaders – despite their cause being entirely different – used popular sovereignty concept not only to justify their actions but also to successfully gather the people of America – americanos – under their colors.
Nevertheless, popular sovereignty concept also played a more subtle complementary role in the process of independence formation. In Atotonilco village, a Mexican Roman Catholic priest Miguel Hidalgo brought out an image of the Virgin of Guadalupe after entering the church. The rebellion took this picture as their symbol while using Guadalupe’s name to make it a password for any of their operations. Hidalgo brought this image – which he chose on purpose – to demonstrate that New Spain indeed has a collective identity including various races and people with African, Indian and mixed-race descendants. The bottom of the painting was inscribed with three vivas: for Guadalupe (as a symbol of resistance and independence), for Fernando (the ruling authority that the people were loyal to), and for America. Fighting for America as a place to live in was, after all, the crucial goal of forming all of the revolutionary movements. Another goal was to claim the independence that the americanos craved so much.
While holding the Guadalupe banner up high, Hidalgo was able to avoid any resistance while they moved to San Miguel successfully. However, Hidalgo’s rebellion comrade Allende feared that the people gathered by the banner would start looting which would repulse the property owning americanos from forming alliances with Hidalgo and Allende’s army which would substantially support them. Another reason was that Allende viewed the property owners firstly as neighbors and friends and only feared for their life and well-being.
Hidalgo, in turn, paid no attention to Allende’s pleads because he started to imagine that popular sovereignty in New Spain would reach the heights of French Revolution resulting in a social, economic, and ideological transformation. He also thought that, if this were to happen, the Spaniards of European and American descent would lose all of their privileges. Furthermore, despite pursuing a just cause of independence, Hidalgo was ready to unleash a devastating wave of disorders that would further unite people under his command.
To summarize, americanos leaders were pursuing a goal of promoting the concept of popular sovereignty from Americans. However, in their pursuit, they were ready to resort to any kind of mean that would allow them achieving their goals. Justification of any of those means would then depend on the person regarding the question.
Conclusion
The americanos’ prolonged fight for independence left the rightful nature of their victory out of the question. The primary instrument in this protracted fight for freedom was the so-called popular sovereignty. However, the complex character of the community that tried to win their independence led independence leaders with to a number of problems that had to be resolved to achieve freedom. First of those problems was the complexity of the nation’s composition itself. The Latin American people included descendants of a vast number of cultures, and each one of them viewed the sovereignty in their own way. Nevertheless, they all strived to become independent and free from the Americans which united them and eventually led to victory.
The independence leaders, in turn, fought using every asset they could to make sure that their goal would be attained. This led to all kinds of atrocities occurring on the americanos’ path to sovereignty. Some leaders went as far as to unleash the people they have united under their command to wreak havoc amongst the Europeans and Americans even if they were americanos’ close ones or friends. Furthermore, the people did such kinds of things despite what caused them to unite in the first place even if it was a painting of the saint.
Work Cited
Chasteen, John. Americanos: Latin America’s Struggle for Independence, Oxford University Press, 2008.