IB History Post-Independence Quiz PDF

IB History HL – Post Independence Quiz HOTA Reading Independence no In x in British North America - Started independence movement and ousted British by 1793 - Challenge: Creating a constitutionally based system of government that enshrined revolutionary ideals of life, liberty, and...

IB History HL – Post Independence Quiz HOTA Reading Independence no In x in British North America - Started independence movement and ousted British by 1793 - Challenge: Creating a constitutionally based system of government that enshrined revolutionary ideals of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - First Attempt: Articles of Confederation lasted five years - Issue: Determining justifiable division of powers between federal government and 13 states - Federalists: Wanted strong central government, limited state powers, opposed Bill of Rights - Anti-Federalists: Opposed strong central government, states should hold balance of power, supported Bill of Rights - Eventually, the Great Compromise resolved the conflicts – Bill of Rights added and Constitution ratified by all 13 states - With constitutional crisis gone, U.S. entered period of economic prosperity, industrialism, westward expansion, etc. - Louisiana Purchase of 1804 – added Mississippi Basin - Oregon boundary settlement with Great Britain – 49th parallel - Annexation of Texas from Mexico – allowed for West to be part of USA Latin America - Independence from European colonial powers not uniform across all Latin America and Caribbean - Puerto Rico, Cuba remained colonies of Spain until end of 19th century - Dominican Republic, West Indies also colonies - In newly independent nations, stability was elusive (hard to achieve) - 18 new nations ended up becoming 23 new nations - Finding effective system of governance was hard - Two powerful ideological groups, liberals and conservatives - Liberals: Championed revolutionary ideals of enlightenment – liberty, fraternity, equality – in theory, but rarely in practice. Republican form of government, free trade, market-driven economy, separation of church and state, rule of law - Conservatives: Represented colonial legacy and wanted to keep many old ways; strong ties between Church and state, elite privilege, social hierarchial structure, etc. - Most of discussion between two factions was held amongst elites of each class; top 10% - Liberal ideas could not entirely replace traditional ideas by 19th century - New elites set up new governments based on liberal values – these liberal values did not include lower classes (women, Indians, blacks, peasants, etc.) - Constitutional influence came from U.S. and French constitutions, but RECENT HISTORIOGRAPHY suggests Spanish Constitution of Cadiz of 1812 was the primary influence - Haiti & Mexico – unsuccessful monarchy, Brazil – successful monarchy - Rural uprisings of feudal hacienda system implemented fear in elites of Ecuador, Mexico - New category of leader – CAUDILLO - Argentina, Uruguay - Pretty much, building national consensus that brings stability is hard - But, not impossible – Brazil, Costa Rica, Chile - Altercations between liberals and conservatives happened in parliamentary, constitutional debates - Many who tried and failed republican governments allowed for caudillos  - Caudillo – charismatic strongmen with power and money to command private armies - Rafael Carrera – Guatemala; Juan Manuel de Rosas – Argentina - Before 1867, lots of constitutional change - Constitutions that eventually endured tended to be compromise of liberalism – lessened power, but still had central executive figure – conservatism - Separation of Church and State — dividing factor - Liberals: opposed Church – believed Church has too much power and can create rigid class hierarchies - Conservatives: supported Church – believed could preserve traditions and maintain social order - Church was only institution to hold sway over country’s entire population Canada - Road to nationhood is evolutionary – not revolutionary - British North America comprised of 6: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Upper Canada (Ontario) ; Lower Canada (Quebec) – French - USA invaded in Rev. War and Wars of 1812 - British questioned loyalty of French-speaking Lower Canada and Americans in Upper Canada – unfounded suspicion - Conservative minded British political elites – Family Compact in Upper Canada; Chateau Clique in Lower Canada - These groups refused to grant responsible government to middle class who paid taxes but no say in gov. - Thus, radical leaders protest and rebellion breaks out in 1837 – quickly shut down - To prevent trouble, Lord Durham is sent and grants responsible government – idea that executive in power is responsible to elected members of legislature - Canada becomes independent dominion of Britain Articles of Confederation and U.S. Empire - First order of business – “deliberate upon and choosing, the forms of government under which they shall live” (John Jay) - Agreed upon federal system of government with division of powers - First attempt in 1783 – unsatisfactory, convened in Philadelphia in 1787 - Daniel Shay’s Rebellion - Shay was farmer and patriot, fought bravely for Continental Army, returned to western Massachussets - Property taxes imposed ruthlessly on farmers – farmers tried and sent to debtors prison - Shay and fellow countrymen ANGRY ☁ - Shay and 1000 Shayites rebel – No blood spilled and for 6 months, Shay goes around and shuts down hated courts - Two cannon shots fired in February – uprising turned down - Washington saw Shay’s rebellion as threat to revolutionary ideals - Sees need to amend Articles of Confederation - What were part of the Articles? - States retain control over federal government - Federal government – virtually powerless - Army and navy non-existent - Thus, Washington and Virginians Hamilton and Madison leads group known as Federalists - Jefferson disagrees – leads group known as Anti-Federalists and believe’s Shay’s rebellion was trivial - Hamilton and Madison convene to address Articles’ shortcomings – five states join, later that spring, all states send best and brightest to Philadelphia in 1787 - Key figures like Adams, Jefferson absent – young patriotic individuals preach their beliefs, influenced by Enlightenment ideals What was debated? - Key national issues that may need a federal government to oversee - Finances were a mess – some believed a strong central government is necessary to enact will on states and individuals - Country owed Europe money, war debts, etc. - Under the Articles, no requirement for states to pay – only voluntary taxation - Army is in shambles – reduced to 80 at one point - Navy is also in shambles – cannot fight off pirates, etc. - What would happen if British come back? - Bitter trade war in between states – intellectuals believe convention is needed to stop drift AMONG states - Bill of Rights: list of alienable rights of US citizens - Philadelphia convention lasts four months (May to Sep. 1787) - Very equal divide between federalists and anti-federalists - Critical debate: Would states retain equal vote in national legislature, or would votes be represented by population? - Small-state leaders like Roger Sherman from Connecticut proved unyielding in opposing the former - Virginia Caucus Plan: Bi-Cameral Legislature - Lower house (House of Representatives) based on representation by population - Upper House (Senate) based on state legislatures and elected by lower house – each state received one vote - New Jersey Plan: Uni-Cameral Legislature - Equal representation of all states regardless of population - Not popular w/ big states – Sherman decides a plan - ESTABLISHED Connecticut Compromise (Great Compromise): Bi-Cameral Legislature - Each state would elect members to lower house (House of Representatives) – ratio of 30,000 to 1 - Each state legislature would elect 2 members to Upper House (Senate) who vote independently, not by state  - Great Compromise agreed upon – slavery becomes issue - Southern states wants to include slaves in head count, not the Northern states (just think ab. it) - Decided that each slave was counted as ⅗ of a person - Initially, Southern states have more over-representation; soon flipped when industrialization happens in North Ratification - Ratification process called for each state to elect delegates and convene ratification convention - Initially, New York refuses – not good - So, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay formulate 85 papers known as the Federalist Papers - a publicity campaign to convince New Yorkers - Anti-federalists fire back – in the end, New York agrees to ratify, but not cos. of Federalist papers but more so cos. other states chose to ratify - Virginia also reluctant but ratifies when Jefferson receives assurance from Madison that Bill of Rights will be added - Why are Federalist papers so important? - Influence is more historical – give a glimpse of thoughts and minds of men who penned constitutions and what they believed and why - Between December of 1787 and Summer of 1789, 11 states ratify – later all states ratify, Washington becomes president, Bill of Rights added in 1791 Latin America – Caudillos - Seminal work on accurate definition of caudillo, Argentine historian Tulio Halperin Donghi suggests it is simplistic and inaccurate to reduce to a caricature these regional strongmen - Suggests they went FAR BEYOND stereotypical role of leader that wanted power by non-democratic means  - Regionalism, federalism, foreign intervention, etc. caused strong personalities to emerge and take charge - Complex social, political, economic environments created context for these caudillos to be the leaders of new nations - Italian political scientist Federica Morelli points to new analysis of 19th century caudillos no longer viewed as power-hungry traitors - This refutes the prevalent view of historians since end of 19th century and beginning of 20th – as well as NA and European historians - Proposes the revisionist view – personal rural charisma and violent aura obscures the budding liberalism and republicanism - Contrary to previous evidence, new evidence shows that new LA nations adopted institutions leaning to democracy - Exception of Ecuador, Chile – right to vote extended to Indians and illiterate males - New Latin American historiography views caudillos, not as tyrants in midst of political anarchy – people who put forward practices of political modernity amongst traditional conservative roles - Petitions, local revolts, grass-roots practices - Lawyers and jurists create backbone of the state, codes of law, business regulation, provisions for constitutions - Social actors contributed in salons, clubs, assemblies - Caudillos had to negotiate with all political/social actors, local elites, peasants, municipal leaders, former slaves, etc. - Caudillos of different types emerged – regionalism, ideological, power desire - Caudillos emerged from liberal and conservative camps - Represented grievances of diff. Interest groups: ranchers, farmers, landowners, merchants, etc.  - Rafael Carrera of Guatemala: of humble origin; Jose Antonio Paez of Venezuela: of mixed racial and social origin; Martin Guemes of Argentina: defended rights of native Salta, etc. etc. - Local peons or former soldiers: some of earliest supporters of caudillos - Caudillos here were successful and popular from wars of independence - Sometimes, violence w/ impunity to maintain authority - Some caudillos come to power in midst of liberal-conservative hostility – e.g Rafael Carrera of Guatemala - Early into United Provinces of Central America – Guatemala liberal - Church especially targeted – tithes abolished, Jesuits/Dominicans expelled, toleration of all religion - Municipalities sources of local/state power – followed colonial tradition of cabaldo (council) , and Indian tradition - Municipalities unhappy with liberal anti-church moves; popular caudillo Rafael Carrera rises in 1838 - Repealed all church laws, kept toleration of religion - Signed concordat with Vatican strengthening Church in Guatemala – 1852 - Different type of caudillo: Diego Portales in 1830s Chile - Businessman who formed powerful conservative influence groups as Minister - Was contributor and commentator for press – used influence to control political anarchy - Figure public servant – defended rule of law, stressed social obedience to authority, WHILE maintaining elite privileges, Church influence - Believed in strong legal system – must be improved - Democracy is a future goal – A strong system of law is necessary FIRST for social control and stability for businesses - Businessmen, landholders prosper – Chileans in general don’t - Caudillos were important nation-builders in LA politics – not the only social actors looking for change - Brazilian historian Jurandir Malerba suggests in Brazil, strong conservative elite influence groups exerted power to maintain privilege and monopoly of commerce - Sometimes had caudillos do it for them - Had strong social/political groups in salons, like LA - Countess de Baral – Woman in 1850s that had a lot of social influence - Wanted abolitonism, protested imprisonment of bishops, declared freedom of her slaves’ children and all slaves eventually - Her salon in Rio was a discussion place for civil discussion - Juan Manuel de Rosas of Argentina: example of why caudillos are not just stereotypical crude dictators - Was a tyrant, did not create republican institutions or Constitution - BUT, lived soberly and modestly – died in poverty - Ruled w/ iron hand – curtailed free speech, etc. - But, announced law to protect ranchers, farmers, and manufacturing industry – wanted to give middle class a chance to prosper - Heavily critical against Indians - Revisionist Argentine historian Tulio Halperin Donghi: Empowered rural peonage – has a ranching and rural base, not urban base - Bottom Line: When compared w/ Why Nations Fail, this HOTA reading gives a counter-argument: the idea that caudillos were not just power-hungry tyrants but also helped with nation building and had to listen to the political and social actors around them. War of 1812 - War by Britain and USA 20 years after Rev. War - War unwanted by both sides Chesapeake Incident - February of 1806: Reported to British admiralty that there were British deserters aboard the USS Chesapeake - Chesapeake captain James Barron refuses – then is attacked and searched: deserters found and killed - Jefferson incensed by such acts and believes violation of American sovereignty - Pressured by War Hawks and Henry Clay, Embargo Act is signed – closer to war Causes of War - Three Main Causes - Search and seizure of neutral NA trade vessels by French and (mainly) British armies - Cargos seizes, ships impounded – efforts asking French and British to honor US neutrality fail - Impressment of US Sailors - British looking for British sailors – they also took some US sailors because they were in need - Desire for land in Midwest - US want to expand to American Midwest, particularly territories south of Great Lakes - Across Appalachians, Native Americans and Tecumseh and Prophet fight back - US believes the guns and gunpowder of Native Americans are provided by British - Britain fought Napoleon in 1793 and continually in 1803 – Battle of Trafalgar in 1805 dictates Britain ruler of the seas - Britannia sets up blockade to starve France - American trade vessels invaded - American neutrality request ignored – Jefferson calls on Congress to ratify Non-Importation Acts: stop flow of manufactured goods TO the US - Manufacturers would make up for goods - Later, negotiations fail, so Jefferson creates Embargo Act – prohibits export of all goods from US – ends up backfiring - Really important issue at this time is impressment - To US, this practice is a violation of their sovereignty and an act of war – Chesapeaker incident triggers pent-up anger - Initially, economic sanctions are established - Search and seizure continues – US suffers economically - Impasse broken in 1810 by Napoleon who says France will honor US neutrality – too late, effects are far gone, and trade trickles - Southern War Hawks want free trade, sailors rights, and annexation of Ohio-Wabash territory - Native Americans and Tecumseh are obstacles to idea of westward expansion – also backed by British - John Randolph opposes War Hawks and says real cause is to grab land - Seafaring New Englanders also oppose war – greeted declaration with muffled bells, fasting, etc. - England merchants were making money trading w/ British – they sympathized with their fight against Napoleon - Federalists condemn war – more agrarian states from wild Northwest = increase voting strength of Western party – Republicans  - James Madison influenced by Henry Clay – US can obtain Canada, many good options from doing so - On June 1, Madison says British might end blockade with US: He was right, as Lord Liverpool rescinds search and seizure of US Vessels - Message gone too late – Madison declares war with Britain on June 18, 1812 - Opposition by New Englanders were heavy – Matter of fact, they lent money to British and sold food during war - Country was divided – Went to war with uncertain aims and unorganized, compared to formidable British navy/army - But, British pre-occupied with fighting Napoleon - American fighting strategy is belief that they could defeat Britain before Britian defeat France Course of War - Jefferson initiates three-pronged invasion (just marching) - General Hull at Detroit, Niagara, most important: march up Lake Champlain and secure Montreal - Sir Isaac Brook makes light work; with his army, surrounds Hull at Detroit who surrenders - Also turns back Niagara Invasion - first major engagement of the war, Battle of Queenston Heights - Brock was killed, new general George Prevost is overly cautious - US army is chaotic - Both sides stumble about wilderness for rest of 1812 - At sea, U.S. frigates won 4 out of 5 encounters with British frigates - Though no match for British battleships, still a great sign - At Great Lakes, U.S. navy defeated British in series of engagements – Tecumseh dies and breaks backbone of Britain-Native American alliance - Napoleon defeated in 1814 - Full direct attention to US in three-pronged invasion  - Defeat cities, Scott Key sings Star-Spangled Banner - Two sides start having negotiations pressured by Tsar - Treaty of Ghent signed Christmas 1814 - The war ended in a draw lacking in decisive engagement that could have flipped the tables - BUT, in one final operation, British attempt to capture New Orleans and look to seize control of Mississippi River (Battle of New Orleans) – Americans ended up winning this battle with Andrew Jackson and frontiersmen: “Not One inch of Territory Ceded” - Battle important for Three Reasons - 1. Ended British operations against US - 2. US folk legend create frontier myths about buckskin-clad frontiersmen who defeated Britain’s best - 3. Marked start of Andrew Jackson’s march to presidency End of War - Britain kept Canada, but realized maintaining it was hard, so tried to repair relations with America Rev Conclusion Reading Many of LA adversities today can be attributed to… - Region’s inclusion in world capitalist system - Incompatibility of Enlightenment principles with preexisting values - Unresolved social tensions from time of independence Inclusion in Capitalist System - National elites in LA welcomed expanding forces of industrial capitalism from England - Imports from Europe and exports thereto MULTIPLIED  - Also, expanded agriculture and cattle raising to supply needs of LA industrialization/manufacturing - Gap between cities and countryside more noticeable - Plantations drew workers into wage-earning sector - Areas closely tied to overseas trade prospered; older areas didn’t - E.g. Argentina, Brazil dominant while Peru not dominant - European influence introduced wave of new ideas, eroding conservatism - Opening of the ports shows this - Free trade tolerated by VICEROY in 1808 – Argentina destined for commercial greatness - When free trade opened altogether – extreme economic potential as exclusive privilege/monopoly did not exist - Hopes of exporting mass amounts of produce to Europe was HINDERED BY WAR - Uruguay: invasion of Brazilians makes nation extremely poor - Peru: Supply of minerals and silver hindered by mines - Venezuela: Led to abandoned estates because slaves fled - But, exports no longer funneled through parasitic mother country (Spain) - ONLY in ARGENTINA, did new trading opportunities lead to exporting wealth - Livestock exported - Neighboring nations unable to compete (War) - Buenos Aires – merchants replaced by ranchers to produce hides, beef, tallow, etc - Gaucho (once free) reduced to a peon (slave for life) - New trading patterns affected commercial patterns - Iberian merchants no trade w/ Portugal and Spain – primarily British - Internal patterns change - Formerly, opulent merchants sold to wholesalers - But, British found it easier to sell DIRECTLY to retailer - Thus, all established in City of Mexico (Mexico City) Four factors that impacted growth in volume of exports/imports - Presence/absence of resources suitable for international economy - Existence of commercial structure adequate to exploit that potential - Merchants w/ sufficient capital and mercantile know-how - Difficulty/ease of transporting raw materials to Europe and manufactured imports to LA - Degree to which military left resourcse, structure, and transportation unscathed - Brazil comes out ahead - Coffee - Coffee production near coast (transportation), no warfare for independence (military), large-scale production (presence of resources), English merchants present (commercial structure) - LA historically dependent on foreign loans (cos. can’t tax internal high source of income) - Exaggeration of future revenue - By 1825, LA borrowed 21 million from in England - Fees and commissions to banks ends up being 12 million - Private investment followed trade - News of Spanish defeat in LA -> London investors to take advantage of mining companies - But, didn’t work – investing community & welcoming governments not mature - Closer ties w/ Europe = alterations in lifestyle - Cultural centers look to Europe for pretty much everything - Diets, furniture, fashion, architecture all influenced - Changes more seen in cities; greater split between urban and rural life - Changes even faster when economy settles down to patterns that would characterize it until WW2 - Technological development impels lifting of tariffs barriers, large-scale migration, mobility of capital  - Greater political stability = greater economic growth - Post-independence LA – neo-colonialism - Seemed that Spain was replaced by England - Early attempts to industrialize overseen by foreign power; so, LA comes to believe true independence only can be achieved with independence under national control Changing Ideology - After independence movements, hierarchical system would never be the same - Political & economic liberalism opens up way for individual to break out of bonds and rise – or sink - Chief ideology: Liberalism – release individual from binding forces of stratified social structure - LA thinkers influenced by Enlightenment - LA thinkers believed freedom of speech, press, religion were basic (natural rights) - They believed that constitutions were necessary - Everyone’s now a citizen - Sovereignty emanates from the people – not lineage - But, would be slow arduous process compared to other nations – where states are already strong or popular representation is ordinary - Failure to fully implement reforms -> refusal of rulers to come to terms with land-owners and privileged social groups (traditionalism) - NOT because ruler were reluctant to establish strong government - EXAMPLE: Bernardo O’ Higgins of Chile - Strengthened police, reduced crime, encouraged trade - Abolished entail, attacked Church, ignored titles of nobility - Bernardino Rivadavia of Buenos Aires – (1821-1827) - General good can be achieved through shrinking state  - Tried to strengthen freedom of individual thru legislation – structural forces work against him - Encouraged immigration – ranchers mad - Attacked Church – offended common people (Church influence) - Wanted to lower import duties and upper taxes – angered upper - Only contempt for lower classes - Advocated for ranchers, saw gauchos as lazy vagabonds - Valentin Gomez Farias of Mexico (1832 - 1834) - Impose values of Enlightenment on RELUCTANT countrymen - Society & individuals should be free to rise or fall according to their abilities; state should help ensure this - Every problem has a rational answer - Abolished monopolies, ended fueros, revoked compulsory payment of Church - Common people angered, economic interests alienated, army did not like fuero being removed - Elaborate program and spell out meaning in concrete acts - Men wanted to create educational facilities for humans to control nature and society - Wanted to separate Church and state to reduce traditionalism - Spanish heritage – chief cause of LA’s evils - Latin America did not entirely copy standards of other governments - John Locke’s views not entirely accepted - Common good achieved not by satisfaction of conflicting interests but but through morality of leaders - Control of speech, uniform religious education to foster this morality - Political theory of time may be studied with Simon Bolivar’s - Excellence of government lies in it being appropriate to character and nature of respective nation - Other contemporaries believe rights of individual best defended if weak central government, executive power curtailed - Bolivar believes powerful executive w/ strong central government  - Weak gov. would lead to anarchy and anarchy to dictatorship - A strong executive would fit the LA experience - views would soon come to be commonplace - Most important feature of period: change in direction - Society is made up of individuals: shifting idea - Individual freedoms curtailed but given recognition - Simplification of tax structure - Laissez-faire economics - First half of century, hailed as radical changes Social Tension - In LA, a few wealthy and many poor continued to characterize LA society - Political liberalism – liberty for few at the top - Independence meant a narrow elite increased its political control - Indians suffer in new regime; they had SOME protection under Spanish control that new leaders wished to destroy - But, slavery considered bad – restricts free initiative of individual - Slave trade ended – but still, there were conditions that still made it bad - Bolivar argued for slaves – helped for Venezuelan independence - He also argued in most states, freeing of slaves would lead to social disruption - Other social changes - Colonial restrictions on freedmen removed - Blacks and mulattos on equal footing - But, not treated equally; discrimination grew - Some blacks and mulattoes were able to reach higher classes - But this was individual mobility – not altered social class Instability and the Caudillo - Independence means end of a government long considered legitimate - During past 300 years, no one questioned the rule of kings or Bourbons or Braganzas  - Without a strong central authority – society in shambles - Seemed that dictator appeared to be only alternative to anarchy – still, very unstable - Forty revolutions occurred in Peru after San Martin’s arrival - Colombia – averaged one revolution and one constitution per year - Legitimate government – right to rule by most of the ruled disappears - Here comes the regional strongman – the caudillo - Exerted power through personal authority rather than through institutional means - Was the result of social transition – not stagnation - Richard Morse argues – comparisons between postcolonial Latin America and Italian Renaissance - Caudillo not necessarily a landowner - More characterized by landless mestizo (not Juan Manel de Rosas) - If caudillo rose by force, he fell by force - Exception – Diego Portales of Chile - Successful businessman - Readily violated individual rights - Managed to institutionalize his power to maintain stability - Wanted centralized government whose members were genuine examples of virtue and patriotism – model for citizens - Eventually, liberalism and democracy might be preferred – discipline and hierarchy NOW - End of Spanish order meant end of legitimate order that could be reconstructed only by returning to hierarchical model – interests of state + creole oligarchy - Brazil: search for legitimacy not necessary because Braganza dynasty maintain in power - Allowed for maintaining stability, and prevented pervasive regionalism - Rest of LA broke into many nations  - Rio de la Plata: Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, Bolivia - New Granada: Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador - New Spain: United Provinces of Central America -> 5 States - Justo Jose de Urquiza of Argentina - Compromised divergent regional interests ___________________________________________________________________ Condensed Notes People to Know (Post-Independence American Revolution) - Daniel Shay - Incited Shay’s rebellion, which can be seen as a primary influence to the revision of the Articles of Confederation. Was unhappy because he fought for Continental Congress, but felt oppressed by property taxes and fellow farmers sent to prison. - Alexander Hamilton - Was part of the Virginians and Federalists who believed in a strong centralized government and argued that Articles did not give gov. enough power. Did not like Articles from the start. Later, would formulate the Federalist Papers. - James Madison - Was part of the Virginians and Federalists who believed in a strong centralized government. Similar in belief to Hamilton. Later, would play major role in the War of 1812 by deciding to wage war on Britain due to discontent over impressment, search and seizure, and inability for westward expansion - Thomas Jefferson - Was part of anti-Federalists who believed in power to the states with limited centralized government power. 3rd President - Roger Sherman  - Was a leader of small-state Connecticut. Credited with the Great Compromise plan which settled the debate of the government system at the Philadelphia convention - Henry Clinton - Governor of New York who rejected ratification of the new Constitution. Prompted the creation of the Federalist papers. (Post-Independence Latin America) - Argentine Historian Tulio Halperin Donghi - Argues that caudillo was more than just a caricature; was a regional strongman who were important in nationbuilding. This refutes common prevalent view of historians since end of 19th century. - Italian poli-scientist Federica Morelli - Also argues that caudillo was not just a power-hungry traitor, but more than that. This refutes common prevalent view of historians since end of 19th century, as well as many NA and EU historians. - Rafael Carrera of Guatemala - Was a caudillo of Guatemala and of humble origin. Came to power in midst of liberal-conservative hostility. While Guatemala was still early on into the United Provinces of Central America, Guatemala was liberal. Church was targeted, and municipalities with a lot of backing were angry. Carrerra stepped in and gained backing, allowing him to be the ruler of Guatemala. - Juan Manuel de Rosas of Argentina - Was a tyrant with a lot of land, but not a crude stereotypical despot. Curtailed free speech and did not implement a Constitution, but created laws to protect agriculture and rancher middle class to give them a chance to prosper. Was not generous to Indians. Had a rural and ranching base unlike other caudillos’ urban base. - Manuel Belzu of Bolivia - Rural leader — lasted 7 years - Jose Artigas of Uruguay  - Rural leader. Defended region north of Rio de la Plata from Buenos Aires and Portuguese encroachment - Jose Antonio Paez of Venezuela - Of mixed racial and social origin - Diego Portales of Chile - Was a businessman and a caudillo. Used his powerful influence to control political anarchy of previous liberal governments. Possessed qualities to attract loyalty and enforced his will ruthlessly. Involved oligarchy directly in power, which can be attributed to maintenance of stability in Chile after his departure. Maintained a strong central executive power whose members would be ideal examples of patriotism, which would promote discipline. Liberalism and democracy might be future ideals, but strong system of law and order is necessary first for business to progress. Was the only caudillo to not have rose by force and fell by force. - Countess de Barral - Was a hostess in Brazil with a lot of influence. Influenced abolitionist movement, protested imprisonment of Catholic bishops, and freed slaves. Her salon in Rio was place of civil discussion. - Bernardo O’ Higgins - Bernardino Rivadavia of Argentina - Was a caudillo who was a fanatical liberal. Believed common good could be achieved by shrinking the state power. Made reforms like strengthening freedom of legislation, attacking church, encouraging immigration, lessening import duties, giving ranchers public land, etc. Hated gauchos tho. Regime failed because he ignored traditionalism. - Gomez Farias of Mexico - Caudillo who wanted to impose values of Enlightenment on countrymen. Believed individuals should rise or fall according to their abilities. Abolished state monopolies, ended fueros, reduced Church power. Regime failed because he failed to come to terms with everyone around him. - Domingo Sarmiento of Argentina  - Was able to institutionalize liberalism during his tenure as president. (Leading up to Independence) - Touissant Louverture: Leader of Haitian independence movement under slaves, etc. Had no military experience, but was still a great leader. Fought against French, British, Spanish, and helped with Haitian reforms like rebuilding agriculture and trying to remove class divisions. Ended up being captured by the French – would never see Haiti reaching full independence - Father Hidalgo: Was a creole priest born in Mexico who recited the Grito del Dolores. Wanted independence in Mexico, which also meant improved conditions for Native Americans, abolishment of slavery, and more equality. Ended up being executed because elites were afraid this threatened their power. - Jose Morelos: Was a Mexican mestizo priest who also wanted abolishment of slavery, Christianity as sole religion, and votes for all men. Was also executed. - Dom Pedro: Proclaimed himself emperor of Brazil and declared independence with himself at the head - Tupac Amaru: Claimed to have descended from royal Incan family. Demanded that the government end brutal system of forced Indian labor – when refused, Amaru fought back, and was killed - Jean-Jacques Dessalines: Took over after Louverture and ensured Haiti’s independence. HE was ruthless, killing all whites, bringing back plantation economic system, and ended up being assassinated and replaced by gens de coleur - Agustin de Iturbide: Led the independence from the Spanish Crown in 1820, declaring himself emperor of Mexico in 1822. Made the Plan de Iguala, but system didn’t change much as system was still corrupt: Iturbide chose his own juntas, etc. - Jose de San Martin - Helped Argentina reach independence along with O’Higgins. Later, met up with Bolivar, and allowed Bolivar to finish liberation in South America - Simon Bolivar  - You know Simon Bolivar (War of 1812) - Henry Clay - War Hawk - Tecumseh and the Prophet - Obstacle of expanding westward - John Randolph - Rejected War Hawk reason of going to war - General Hull - Failed terribly at conquering Canada - Sir Isaac Brock - Great British commander who died and then Britain also wasn’t very good at attacking - Andrew Jackson - Headed battle of new Orleans and would later become President Terms to Know