Two responses were common

1. Two responses were common • To stress racial disunity during the revolution • But you needed evidence to support that, not just take Bolivar’s word for it • Llanero revolt, Hidalgo’s army Or— To question Bolivar’s motivations (OPVL type analysis) ie: did the creoles make this up because they didn’t want democracy? Evidence: the post-war constitutions, but also the fact that Creoles preferred to keep castas as manual labor during the revolutions until the castas sort of took the movement over

2. The Common Mistake • Was the US really unified?

3. disunity • They had lack of unity, or agreement of common principles, apart from wanting to be left alone • That is—what was the revolution about? • They had conservative/liberal split, also

4. Why success, then? • The lack of economic devastation? • White unanimity around self-interest enabled by Northern acquiescence to Southern slavery? • Promise of social mobility and access to open land? Safety Valve… • Looser colonial controls during formative years?

5. Why success, then? • Failure of caudillo culture to flourish--why? Was it luck? We had a few… Inherent suspicion of oppressive power in British culture? • Was it really British racism that allowed a culture of white supremacy to at least have that unifying principle? • Immediate move post-independence to sign treaty with Britain and begin building manufacturing base? • Fear of slaves creating loyalty to form of centralized power? Esp. after Haiti • Smaller land base and common culture and experience between revolutionary leaders?

6. Or… • …was the US unified, and that western progression allowed americans to pretend centralized gov’t did not exist • Which is why we’ve had problems ever since? Were Latin American failures of democracy due more to post-independent failures (of nerve, of approach, etc)