Latin America. Cuba 2006, April. A delegation headed by Sergei Sidorsky arrived in Cuba from Belarus. Belarus supplies to Cuba: all-terrain vehicles (“tractors”) “Belarus”, “MAZs”, “BelAZs” and refrigerators “Minsk”. For 50 years, Cuba has been blockaded by a sect

Marchuk N.N. ::: History of Latin America from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century

Topic 4.

The place of the countries of Latin America in the system of the international division of labor. Raw material export structure of the economy: types, system of production relations, main contradictions. Development of industry and the domestic market.

The impact of capitalist development on the ethnic and class structure of Latin American societies.

Class contradictions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Liberal-oligarchic state in Latin America.

Economy. Liberal reforms laid the foundations for the integration of Latin American countries into the world economy as suppliers of mineral raw materials and agricultural products, as well as a market for industrial products and a sphere for investing capital from the leading powers of Europe and North America. Although the chosen development model doomed the continent to the position of an agrarian and raw material periphery, by the beginning of the 20th century. it also provided obvious successes. If by 1900 the number of its inhabitants increased to 63 million people and amounted to 4.1% of the world's population, then the share of the continent in the world trade turnover increased to 79%. At the same time, natural, climatic and demographic features led to the formation of three main types of raw materials export economy in the region, which gave different results.

Euro-America, and above all Argentina and Uruguay, went further along the path resettlement capitalism like USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. According to the principle of "comparative advantage", these countries received high incomes from the sale of livestock and agricultural products on the world market. At the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. they moved into the ranks of world leaders in terms of economic growth (5.5%), and by 1920, and in terms of per capita income. By 1914, Argentina, whose population did not reach 8 million people, had 26 million heads of cattle (3rd place in the world after the USA and Russia), 67 million sheep (2nd after Australia), occupied 1st place in the export of beef and corn, 4th in the export of wheat (16% of world exports) and the length of railways (33 thousand km), etc. In the meat-packing industry of Argentina and Uruguay, the leading position was occupied by American capital as the owner of advanced technology in this industry. But the main trading partner, creditor and "donor" of investments for them was not the United States, their competitor on the world market, but England and other Western European powers. From there, millions of immigrants poured into their population, bringing to these countries not only the purity of the white race, but also advanced technical and humanitarian knowledge, a high level of education and culture.

afro america (Brazil, Venezuela, Cuba and other Caribbean countries), along with other areas of the tropics and subtropics, as before, joined the new world market as exporters of products tropical farming. Since England and France were the largest owners of colonies in the same zone, the main partner, creditor and "donor" of this group of countries, with the exception of Brazil, was the United States. In general, this group also had high growth rates. In Brazil, for example, in 1876-1913. they averaged 3.2% per year. By the beginning of the XX century. this group occupied a leading position in the world export of a number of crops: Brazil for coffee (75%), Cuba with a population of 3 million people for sugar (20%), the countries of Central America became "banana republics", etc.

Yet these countries were less dynamic, because advanced European technology offered little to their plantation economy, they had to compete in the world market with many colonies in Asia and Africa, and the consequences of world price fluctuations were more painfully felt. They lagged behind Euro-America in terms of the length of the railway network (even Brazil, which was three times larger than Argentina in terms of territory and population, was inferior to it in this indicator in 1914, having 21 thousand km), in terms of the share of European immigrants, literacy of the population, and many others. characteristics.

Mining export economy It developed mainly in Indo-America in Peru, the "tin republic" of Bolivia, and also Mexico, where it coexisted with cattle breeding and export tropical agriculture. Although Chile adjoined the countries of resettlement capitalism, being a major exporter of wheat since the middle of the 19th century, it simultaneously developed the mining industry, becoming first the world leader in the export of copper, and from the end of the 19th century. and saltpeter. Later, such an economy was supplemented by oil production, and Venezuela, the largest oil exporter on the continent, was among the producing countries.

This group of countries also showed high average development indicators. So, if in 1890 tin mining in Bolivia was 1 thousand tons, then in 1905 it was already 15 thousand tons, and by 1914 it became the second tin-producing country in the world, giving 20% ​​of the world production of this metal. In Chile, in 1892, the export of saltpeter was only 300 thousand tons, and in 1906 it was already 11,600 thousand tons. The value of all exports, which, in addition to saltpeter, included copper, gold, silver, lead, iron, coal and manganese, increased over the same period from 29 to 580 million pesos.

However, the development of the subsoil required large investments and advanced technology, and their monopoly holders of England and the United States, in conditions of free competition, easily took over the mining of Latin America, displacing or integrating local capital into their structures. These monopolies enjoyed the right of extraterritoriality, i.e. not subject to local laws. They freely exported their profits abroad, imported everything necessary for the development of subsoil from abroad, required a relatively small local labor force, created a network of highly specialized railways that were by no means suitable for any kind of cargo transportation. Therefore, the extractive industries turned into foreign enclaves that contributed little to the country's economy as a whole (only relatively small tax revenues). As a result, the country could have the richest subsoil, while remaining poor.

Society. The system of production relations of post-reform Latin America was distinguished by an extremely high concentration of means of production in the hands of raw materials export oligarchy, as, for example, in Mexico, where by 1910 over 90% of the rural population was completely deprived of land. Although since the end of the XIX century. the identification of the oligarchy with "feudal" latifundism has become an integral element of the political culture on the continent, the oligarchy did not represent the latifundists, but the cream of the local bourgeoisie as a whole, integrated into the world economy and intertwined, including family ties, mining, industrial, land and trade and financial magnates . Even the latifundists were by no means only landowners: for example, in Chile, out of 46 chairmen of the latifundist National Society of Agriculture from 1838 to 1930, 15 were presidents of banks, 16 were directors of industrial, commercial and mining companies.

The relations of the local oligarchy with foreign monopolies were not always hospitable. Nevertheless, both of them were united by a common interest in the raw materials export orientation of the continent, which allows us to consider them as a single dominant and ruling bloc. Many European immigrants joined the oligarchy, especially in the zone of "settlement capitalism." So, for example, in Uruguay in 1871, among the founders of the latifundist Agrarian Association, there were pure foreigners, i.e. excluding their descendants born in the country, amounted to 32%. In Guatemala, German colonists, mostly descendants of settlers from the period from 1860 to 1870, made up only about 1% of the country's total landowners. However, they owned up to 48% of all large land holdings in the country, which gave up to 60% of all coffee harvested in Guatemala.

As regards the nationality of the monopolies, the undisputed superiority was held by England, which in 1914 accounted for 49% of the $10 billion in foreign investment in Latin America. This was followed by the monopolies of the USA (17%), France (12%), Germany (9%), etc.

Impressive economic progress at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. was achieved through expropriation and a sharp deterioration in the standard of living of the vast majority of the population. By the beginning of the 20th century, the wages of urban and rural workers amounted to half of the level of the middle of the 19th century. Typical phenomena were a 14-18-hour working day, the most difficult working conditions even for women and adolescents, high mortality of the population, especially children, the issuance of wages not in cash, but in bonds, which were accepted only in the patron's shop. Debt bondage and even corporal punishment of workers flourished in the post-reform countryside.

State. Civil society in Latin America remained extremely elitist. Through the filters of residence, property and educational qualifications to the exercise of the right to vote at the beginning of the 20th century. infiltrated 9% of the population in Argentina, 5% in Uruguay, 3% each in Brazil, Bolivia and Ecuador. But even with such an electorate, forgery and fraud in elections or coup d'état were widely practiced. integral features of the post-revolutionary liberal state there was also a restoration of de facto centralism and such a hypertrophy of executive power that this state was most often embodied in the odious dictatorships of Porfirio Diaz in Mexico in 1876-1911. ("porfiriato"), Guzman Blanco ("gusmanato" 1870-1888) or Vicente Gomez (1909-1935) in Venezuela, Rafael Nunez in Colombia (1880-1894), Estrada Cabrera in Guatemala (1898-1920) and others .

The abyss that separated the social and political realities of post-reform Latin America from the not-yet-forgotten slogans and promises of the liberal revolutionaries prompts historians to portray the case as if the oligarchy that crept into power either perverted the ideals of liberalism (and therefore the term "liberal state" is supplemented with the term "oligarchic" ), or introduced something directly opposite to it (in Mexico it even became a tradition to fence off the "bad" liberal P. Diaz from the "good" leader of the Reform of 1854-1867 B. Juarez with a Chinese wall).

However, as mentioned above, even in Europe, where the old liberal principles of the Enlightenment under the influence of positivism had undergone significant changes by that time, the central place in the priorities of the state was taken not by the individual, but by society. Especially in Latin America, where the free play of market forces had to be created not only with an iron fist, but with an iron fist, the state could not serve only "the individual and the citizen." It had to become and indeed became the axis of social development: it distributed property and credits, carried out public works, suppressed peasant unrest, labor strikes, uprisings of provincial caudillos, in a word, provided order and stability in the name of progress.

The positivist formula "Order and progress!", turned into the motto of the post-revolutionary state, removed many of the old contradictions between liberals and conservatives. Therefore, the liberals themselves, as in Bolivia in 1889-1920, and the conservatives, as in Argentina at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, could put the formula into practice. But most often this was done by associations of liberals and conservatives, either through coalition governments, as in Chile of 1861-1876, or through the formation of a new united party, like the National Party in Colombia in the era of R. Nunez. The most successful and lasting association of both was the Liberal Union of Mexico, created in 1892 by Diaz, which, due to frequent references to a positivist attitude towards the special sciences, is better known as the "sientificos" ("scientists") grouping. Headed by H.I. Limantour, Díaz's finance minister, the Liberal Union acted as a technocratic elite, pioneering Mexico's progress but also the architect of Latin America's most notorious dictatorial regime.

Latin America at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries clearly lagged behind the leading powers. Its economy was based on agriculture and the export of raw materials, while the leading European powers were dominated by industry and machine labor. There was also no political unity in the countries of Latin America. In most countries, a strict regime was established - a military dictatorship. Among other things, the Latin American countries were worried about the topical issue - the question of slavery. You will learn about these and other important events in the history of Latin America by studying this lesson.

Latin American countries in the 19th - early 20th centuries

background

After the victory of the Spanish colonies in the war of independence (see the lesson "The War of Independence in Latin America"), the possessions of Spain and Portugal in Latin America became sovereign states (sovereignty). In almost all Latin American states (the only exception was Brazil until 1889) a republican system was established. The most common form of government was military dictatorship (in the 19th century, military dictators ruled every country in Latin America at least once).

In the 19th century the states of Latin America often fought with each other, trying to expand their territories (the most bloody was the Paraguayan war). There were also internal conflicts, which sometimes led to the emergence of new independent states (for example, in 1838-1840, the state of the United Provinces of Central America broke up into several independent states).

The basis of the economy continued to be the export of raw materials and agricultural products (Brazil supplied European markets with 2/3 of the volume of coffee, Venezuela - oil, Cuba - sugar).

Events

1831- civil war in Colombia. Separation from Colombia of Venezuela.

1838-1840- civil war in the United Provinces of Central America, which resulted in a number of independent states: Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, Guatemala.

1820-50s- About 1 million slaves from Africa were imported to Brazil.

Members

Porfirio Diaz - President of Mexico, who established a dictatorial regime in 1884.

Emiliano Zapata - leader of the Mexican Revolution.

Conclusion

Freed from the rule of Spain, the independent states of Latin America entered a period of civil and internecine wars, as well as the struggle with each other for possession of the territory. Weakened by wars and economically fragile, most of the Latin American countries fell under the economic and political control of the United States. This was in line with the Monroe Doctrine, according to which Latin America is a zone of American interests.

In this lesson, we will talk about the countries of Latin America in the 19th - early 20th centuries, namely, how life was arranged in these states after the end of the war of independence.

Concerning forms of political power in Latin America, then its main view at that time becomes military dictatorship. This phenomenon has been named caudilism- a system of one-man government based on military force. Military dictators ruled Latin American countries at least once in the 19th century. In many countries, military dictatorship continued its history into the 20th century. This did not mean that the political system of these states was changing. Those countries that were, for example, republics, remained so. Latin American countries continued to fight against the monarchies. So, Brazil ceased to be a monarchy in 1889. A republic was established in the country. In 1889 brazilian king pedroII(Fig. 1) abdicated the throne (he did this under pressure from the military, in particular Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca). Deodoro da Fonseca himself (Fig. 2) was elected President of Brazil in 1892. The Marshal promptly dissolved the National Congress and refused to hold early elections. Deputy Marshal-President, Marshal FlorianPeixote, demanded that Deodoro da Fonseca relinquish power. That was done. Peixoto himself became the new president of Brazil. He, like the previous president, refused to hold parliamentary elections.

Rice. 1. Brazilian King Pedro II ()

Rice. 2. Manuel Deodoro da Fonseca ()

As for the economy of this region, the dominant factor was export of raw materials. Latin America managed agricultural production well, the industry practically did not develop there. Brazil in the 19th century supplied the world market with up to 2/3 of all coffee. At the end of the 19th century, many states of this region, including Brazil, embraced rubber fever. The extraction of this important raw material has become the basis of the economy of many Latin American countries. On the one hand, this was good, since the export of raw materials ensured a decent existence for Latin American countries, but such countries quickly became economically dependent on European countries and the United States, because it was a state that mainly consumed Latin American products. The United States wanted to influence the political life of these countries as well. When America decided to build the Panama Canal, and the Colombian authorities refused to do so, the Americans carried out a rebellion on the territory of Panama, torn it away from Colombia, declared it an independent state, sent their troops there and built a canal, despite the protests of the old government.

Other European states also tried to put pressure on this region. played a major role here Spain. The Spaniards did not take the secession of Latin America lightly. In 1864, Spain launched a large-scale war to regain control of at least part of Latin American lands. This war went down in history as (Fig. 3). The Spanish fleet approached the coast of Peru and decided to return control to Spain in this region. However, the war for Spain ended in nothing. The Spaniards could not imagine that the Latin American states could unite and resist attempts to recreate the Spanish colonial empire.

Rice. 3. First Pacific War ()

The main influence on the events in this region was still exerted by the United States. Operated since the 1820s Monroe Doctrine(America promised not to interfere in European affairs if the Europeans did not interfere in the affairs of the American continent). According to this doctrine, Latin America was declared a zone of American interests. The Americans took responsibility for everything that happened in this region.

The intervention of Americans in Latin American affairs in the middle of the 19th century was not very strong, since America was solving its own internal problems. But at the end of the 19th century, the United States again began to interfere in the affairs of Latin America. In 1898, during the Spanish-American War, Cuba and Puerto Rico achieved formal independence. In 1903, the Panama Incident occurred, which was discussed above. By the 1910s, the Americans had their military presence in many states of the region.

This region was governed by the principle of "divide and conquer". Many of the Latin American states, under American rule, were set against each other. Civil wars often broke out. So, in 1831, during the Civil War, the state now known as Venezuela separated from Great Colombia. In 1838-1840. Under the influence of various forces, the state of the Central Province of Latin America collapsed. At this place, several independent states arose, which fell under the political and economic control of the United States.

It should be noted that the responsibility for such wars should not be placed solely on the shoulders of the United States. Often, fierce disputes over territories arose between the Latin American states themselves, which escalated into large-scale wars. Such was Paraguayan War 1864-1870(Fig. 4). In this war, Paraguay was opposed by three states: Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. This war went down in history as one of the bloodiest. In those days, there was no such accurate census, but it is generally accepted that out of 520 thousand inhabitants of Paraguay, at least 300 thousand people died during this war. Many historians see the reasons for such great losses of Paraguay in the dictatorial regime that was established on the territory of this country. People were sent to fight, although it was obvious that these battles would be losing for Paraguay. As a result, the war ended with the complete defeat of the Paraguayan state.. Its territory was occupied by Brazilian troops for 6 years, and Paraguay lost about half of all the lands under its control.

Rice. 4. Paraguayan War (1864-1870) ()

Another important problem that confronted the Latin American states at that time was slavery problem(Fig. 5). If in a number of Latin American countries there were few slaves, then in some states their percentage was significant. An example of such a state was Brazil. The situation with slavery was so serious that many public and political figures demanded the release of black slaves.

Rice. 5. An overseer punishes a slave on a plantation in Brazil ()

As long as slavery existed in the US South, the opponents of slavery had little reason to argue that it was unsustainable from an economic point of view. After 1865, when slavery in the United States disappeared, the voice abolitionists(supporters of the abolition of slavery) became well heard. In 1871, the Free Womb Law was passed in Brazil.. This law stated that slave children born at this time become free. A few years later, another law was passed, according to which all slaves who reached the age of 60 received freedom. However, these were half-hearted decisions. After all, the child of a slave could not lead an independent household, and the vast majority of the population of Latin America did not live up to the age of 60 years. Even those slaves who lived to 60, according to this law, could not leave their masters and had to live on the estate and work for the master for another 5 years.

Such measures could not solve the issue of slavery. By the time slavery was abolished in Brazil, there were about 700,000 slaves per 14 million people. The law on the abolition of slavery, which was passed in Brazil in 1888, was called the "golden law" by Brazilian historians and contemporaries.

An important event in the history of Latin America was Mexican Revolution 1910-1917. Mexico has been ruled by a president since 1876 (Fig. 6). He managed to establish a military dictatorship in a peculiar way. He opposed Mexican presidents holding office for two consecutive terms. He believed that one term was enough and presidents needed to resign and give other politicians the opportunity to appear. When a similar law was passed, Porfirio Diaz became president. When his first term ended, he ran for re-election. He said that he simply changed his point of view and one term is still not enough.

Rice. 6. Porfirio Diaz ()

The repeated extension of the term of Porfirio Diaz led to the rise of the movement for the independence of the country from his officials. The level of corruption in Mexico was prohibitive. The United States was a huge influence in Mexico. Therefore, in 1910, the opponent of Diaz raised an uprising. Two partisan armies were formed almost simultaneously in the north and south of the country. In the north, an army was operating under the leadership of Francisco Villa(Fig. 7). In the south of Mexico, he led the rebels (Fig. 8).

Rice. 7. Francisco Villa ()

Rice. 8. Emiliano Zapata ()

The offensive of the rebel armies in Mexico City led to the fact that in 1911 Porfirio Diaz fled the country. Free presidential elections were held in the country, which were won by the landowner (Fig. 9). However, the revolution did not end there. The situation developed in such a way that from 1911 to 1917 various groups, both revolutionary and counter-revolutionary, seized power in the country. Often at this time, armed coups took place in the country.

Rice. 9. Francisco Madero ()

The events that took place in Mexico City from February 9 to February 19, 1913, went down in history as Tragic decade. At this time, President Madero lost his power. He was overthrown from the presidency by an opponent of the revolution, a general (Fig. 10). He remained president of Mexico for a short time. Soon he was replaced by a coup d'état general Venustiano Carranza(Fig. 11). His power also did not last long.

Rice. 10. Victoriano Huerta ()

Rice. 11. Venustiano Carranza ()

The reasons for such a frequent change of power in Mexico during this revolution were that there was no unity and a common idea in Mexican society about how the country would develop further. The United States decided to take advantage of the situation in Mexico, which in 1914-1916. attempted to intervene in Mexico. Mexican society united, completed the revolution and expelled the interventionists from the territory of Mexico.

As a result, we note that the countries of Latin America were at that time on the sidelines of the world historical process. Their movement in the direction of Europe, the implementation of reforms and revolutions dates back to the 20th century.

Bibliography

1. Alperovich M.S., Rudenko B.T. Mexican Revolution 1910-1917 and US policy. - M.: Sotsekgiz, 1958.
2. Alperovich M.S., Slezkin L.Yu. History of Latin America (from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century). - Educational edition. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: Higher. school, 1991.
3. Guimarães Bernardo. Slave Isaura
4. Noskov V.V., Andreevskaya T.P. General history. 8th grade. - M., 2013
5. R. Shane. The Wars of Latin America: The Age of the Caudillos, 1791-1899.
6. Yudovskaya A.Ya. General history. History of the New Age, 1800-1900, Grade 8. - M., 2012.

1. Livejournal.com().
2. Latino-america.ru ().
3. Knowhistory.ru ().
4. Worldhis.ru ().

Homework

1. What form of political power was predominant in Latin America at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries?
2. Which countries actively interfered in the affairs of Latin America and how did the Latin American region deal with it?
3. Tell us about the problem of slavery in Latin America. What measures have been taken to address this topical issue?
4. Tell me about the Mexican Revolution. What process contributed to its completion?

Latin America at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries clearly lagged behind the leading powers. Its economy was based on agriculture and the export of raw materials, while the leading European powers were dominated by industry and machine labor. There was also no political unity in the countries of Latin America. In most countries, a strict regime was established - a military dictatorship. Among other things, the Latin American countries were worried about the topical issue - the question of slavery. You will learn about these and other important events in the history of Latin America by studying this lesson.

Latin American countries in the 19th - early 20th centuries

background

After the victory of the Spanish colonies in the war of independence (see the lesson "The War of Independence in Latin America"), the possessions of Spain and Portugal in Latin America became sovereign states (sovereignty). In almost all Latin American states (the only exception was Brazil until 1889) a republican system was established. The most common form of government was military dictatorship (in the 19th century, military dictators ruled every country in Latin America at least once).

In the 19th century the states of Latin America often fought with each other, trying to expand their territories (the most bloody was the Paraguayan war). There were also internal conflicts, which sometimes led to the emergence of new independent states (for example, in 1838-1840, the state of the United Provinces of Central America broke up into several independent states).

The basis of the economy continued to be the export of raw materials and agricultural products (Brazil supplied European markets with 2/3 of the volume of coffee, Venezuela - oil, Cuba - sugar).

Events

1831- civil war in Colombia. Separation from Colombia of Venezuela.

1838-1840- civil war in the United Provinces of Central America, which resulted in a number of independent states: Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, Guatemala.

1820-50s- About 1 million slaves from Africa were imported to Brazil.

Members

Porfirio Diaz - President of Mexico, who established a dictatorial regime in 1884.

Emiliano Zapata - leader of the Mexican Revolution.

Conclusion

Freed from the rule of Spain, the independent states of Latin America entered a period of civil and internecine wars, as well as the struggle with each other for possession of the territory. Weakened by wars and economically fragile, most of the Latin American countries fell under the economic and political control of the United States. This was in line with the Monroe Doctrine, according to which Latin America is a zone of American interests.

In this lesson, we will talk about the countries of Latin America in the 19th - early 20th centuries, namely, how life was arranged in these states after the end of the war of independence.

Concerning forms of political power in Latin America, then its main view at that time becomes military dictatorship. This phenomenon has been named caudilism- a system of one-man government based on military force. Military dictators ruled Latin American countries at least once in the 19th century. In many countries, military dictatorship continued its history into the 20th century. This did not mean that the political system of these states was changing. Those countries that were, for example, republics, remained so. Latin American countries continued to fight against the monarchies. So, Brazil ceased to be a monarchy in 1889. A republic was established in the country. In 1889 brazilian king pedroII(Fig. 1) abdicated the throne (he did this under pressure from the military, in particular Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca). Deodoro da Fonseca himself (Fig. 2) was elected President of Brazil in 1892. The Marshal promptly dissolved the National Congress and refused to hold early elections. Deputy Marshal-President, Marshal FlorianPeixote, demanded that Deodoro da Fonseca relinquish power. That was done. Peixoto himself became the new president of Brazil. He, like the previous president, refused to hold parliamentary elections.

Rice. 1. Brazilian King Pedro II ()

Rice. 2. Manuel Deodoro da Fonseca ()

As for the economy of this region, the dominant factor was export of raw materials. Latin America managed agricultural production well, the industry practically did not develop there. Brazil in the 19th century supplied the world market with up to 2/3 of all coffee. At the end of the 19th century, many states of this region, including Brazil, embraced rubber fever. The extraction of this important raw material has become the basis of the economy of many Latin American countries. On the one hand, this was good, since the export of raw materials ensured a decent existence for Latin American countries, but such countries quickly became economically dependent on European countries and the United States, because it was a state that mainly consumed Latin American products. The United States wanted to influence the political life of these countries as well. When America decided to build the Panama Canal, and the Colombian authorities refused to do so, the Americans carried out a rebellion on the territory of Panama, torn it away from Colombia, declared it an independent state, sent their troops there and built a canal, despite the protests of the old government.

Other European states also tried to put pressure on this region. played a major role here Spain. The Spaniards did not take the secession of Latin America lightly. In 1864, Spain launched a large-scale war to regain control of at least part of Latin American lands. This war went down in history as (Fig. 3). The Spanish fleet approached the coast of Peru and decided to return control to Spain in this region. However, the war for Spain ended in nothing. The Spaniards could not imagine that the Latin American states could unite and resist attempts to recreate the Spanish colonial empire.

Rice. 3. First Pacific War ()

The main influence on the events in this region was still exerted by the United States. Operated since the 1820s Monroe Doctrine(America promised not to interfere in European affairs if the Europeans did not interfere in the affairs of the American continent). According to this doctrine, Latin America was declared a zone of American interests. The Americans took responsibility for everything that happened in this region.

The intervention of Americans in Latin American affairs in the middle of the 19th century was not very strong, since America was solving its own internal problems. But at the end of the 19th century, the United States again began to interfere in the affairs of Latin America. In 1898, during the Spanish-American War, Cuba and Puerto Rico achieved formal independence. In 1903, the Panama Incident occurred, which was discussed above. By the 1910s, the Americans had their military presence in many states of the region.

This region was governed by the principle of "divide and conquer". Many of the Latin American states, under American rule, were set against each other. Civil wars often broke out. So, in 1831, during the Civil War, the state now known as Venezuela separated from Great Colombia. In 1838-1840. Under the influence of various forces, the state of the Central Province of Latin America collapsed. At this place, several independent states arose, which fell under the political and economic control of the United States.

It should be noted that the responsibility for such wars should not be placed solely on the shoulders of the United States. Often, fierce disputes over territories arose between the Latin American states themselves, which escalated into large-scale wars. Such was Paraguayan War 1864-1870(Fig. 4). In this war, Paraguay was opposed by three states: Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. This war went down in history as one of the bloodiest. In those days, there was no such accurate census, but it is generally accepted that out of 520 thousand inhabitants of Paraguay, at least 300 thousand people died during this war. Many historians see the reasons for such great losses of Paraguay in the dictatorial regime that was established on the territory of this country. People were sent to fight, although it was obvious that these battles would be losing for Paraguay. As a result, the war ended with the complete defeat of the Paraguayan state.. Its territory was occupied by Brazilian troops for 6 years, and Paraguay lost about half of all the lands under its control.

Rice. 4. Paraguayan War (1864-1870) ()

Another important problem that confronted the Latin American states at that time was slavery problem(Fig. 5). If in a number of Latin American countries there were few slaves, then in some states their percentage was significant. An example of such a state was Brazil. The situation with slavery was so serious that many public and political figures demanded the release of black slaves.

Rice. 5. An overseer punishes a slave on a plantation in Brazil ()

As long as slavery existed in the US South, the opponents of slavery had little reason to argue that it was unsustainable from an economic point of view. After 1865, when slavery in the United States disappeared, the voice abolitionists(supporters of the abolition of slavery) became well heard. In 1871, the Free Womb Law was passed in Brazil.. This law stated that slave children born at this time become free. A few years later, another law was passed, according to which all slaves who reached the age of 60 received freedom. However, these were half-hearted decisions. After all, the child of a slave could not lead an independent household, and the vast majority of the population of Latin America did not live up to the age of 60 years. Even those slaves who lived to 60, according to this law, could not leave their masters and had to live on the estate and work for the master for another 5 years.

Such measures could not solve the issue of slavery. By the time slavery was abolished in Brazil, there were about 700,000 slaves per 14 million people. The law on the abolition of slavery, which was passed in Brazil in 1888, was called the "golden law" by Brazilian historians and contemporaries.

An important event in the history of Latin America was Mexican Revolution 1910-1917. Mexico has been ruled by a president since 1876 (Fig. 6). He managed to establish a military dictatorship in a peculiar way. He opposed Mexican presidents holding office for two consecutive terms. He believed that one term was enough and presidents needed to resign and give other politicians the opportunity to appear. When a similar law was passed, Porfirio Diaz became president. When his first term ended, he ran for re-election. He said that he simply changed his point of view and one term is still not enough.

Rice. 6. Porfirio Diaz ()

The repeated extension of the term of Porfirio Diaz led to the rise of the movement for the independence of the country from his officials. The level of corruption in Mexico was prohibitive. The United States was a huge influence in Mexico. Therefore, in 1910, the opponent of Diaz raised an uprising. Two partisan armies were formed almost simultaneously in the north and south of the country. In the north, an army was operating under the leadership of Francisco Villa(Fig. 7). In the south of Mexico, he led the rebels (Fig. 8).

Rice. 7. Francisco Villa ()

Rice. 8. Emiliano Zapata ()

The offensive of the rebel armies in Mexico City led to the fact that in 1911 Porfirio Diaz fled the country. Free presidential elections were held in the country, which were won by the landowner (Fig. 9). However, the revolution did not end there. The situation developed in such a way that from 1911 to 1917 various groups, both revolutionary and counter-revolutionary, seized power in the country. Often at this time, armed coups took place in the country.

Rice. 9. Francisco Madero ()

The events that took place in Mexico City from February 9 to February 19, 1913, went down in history as Tragic decade. At this time, President Madero lost his power. He was overthrown from the presidency by an opponent of the revolution, a general (Fig. 10). He remained president of Mexico for a short time. Soon he was replaced by a coup d'état general Venustiano Carranza(Fig. 11). His power also did not last long.

Rice. 10. Victoriano Huerta ()

Rice. 11. Venustiano Carranza ()

The reasons for such a frequent change of power in Mexico during this revolution were that there was no unity and a common idea in Mexican society about how the country would develop further. The United States decided to take advantage of the situation in Mexico, which in 1914-1916. attempted to intervene in Mexico. Mexican society united, completed the revolution and expelled the interventionists from the territory of Mexico.

As a result, we note that the countries of Latin America were at that time on the sidelines of the world historical process. Their movement in the direction of Europe, the implementation of reforms and revolutions dates back to the 20th century.

Bibliography

1. Alperovich M.S., Rudenko B.T. Mexican Revolution 1910-1917 and US policy. - M.: Sotsekgiz, 1958.
2. Alperovich M.S., Slezkin L.Yu. History of Latin America (from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century). - Educational edition. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: Higher. school, 1991.
3. Guimarães Bernardo. Slave Isaura
4. Noskov V.V., Andreevskaya T.P. General history. 8th grade. - M., 2013
5. R. Shane. The Wars of Latin America: The Age of the Caudillos, 1791-1899.
6. Yudovskaya A.Ya. General history. History of the New Age, 1800-1900, Grade 8. - M., 2012.

1. Livejournal.com().
2. Latino-america.ru ().
3. Knowhistory.ru ().
4. Worldhis.ru ().

Homework

1. What form of political power was predominant in Latin America at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries?
2. Which countries actively interfered in the affairs of Latin America and how did the Latin American region deal with it?
3. Tell us about the problem of slavery in Latin America. What measures have been taken to address this topical issue?
4. Tell me about the Mexican Revolution. What process contributed to its completion?

The main trends in the socio-economic and political development of Latin American countries at the beginning of the century

During the time that has passed since independence, the countries of Latin America have made significant progress in their socio-economic development. By the beginning of the 20th century, this vast region presented a very mixed picture. Along with huge, poorly developed, and even simply unexplored areas (the Amazon basin, Patagonia), large industrial centers arose - Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Sao Paulo. Back in the last third of the 19th century, the most developed countries of Latin America - Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay - entered the phase of an industrial revolution and by the beginning of the century had already laid the foundation for their industrial potential. It is important to emphasize that from the very beginning these countries were actively integrated into a single world economic complex.

A characteristic feature of the development of even the most economically advanced countries of Latin America was that new socio-economic structures not only replaced the old ones, but gradually integrated them into their orbit. This facilitated and accelerated the pace of bourgeois progress. But there was also a reverse side of the coin: this feature of the socio-economic development of Latin America gave rise to an unusual vitality of the integrated elements of traditional structures within the new ones. In the economies of these countries, the multistructural structure was firmly entrenched, and this, in turn, increased the contradictory nature of the evolution of Latin American society.

This inconsistency was most fully manifested in the development of the agricultural sector. The main economic unit there was still latifundia, whose owners owned about 80% of all cultivated land in the leading countries of Latin America. However, integration into a single world economic complex stimulated the transformation of these farms. The market dictated its conditions, and this dictate turned into the fact that agriculture acquired a monocultural character. For example, Argentina became the largest supplier of grain and meat, Brazil and Colombia - coffee, Cuba - sugar, Bolivia - tin, Venezuela - oil, etc. This seriously hampered the development of the domestic market.

The turn of the 19th–20th centuries was marked by a sharp intensification of the penetration of foreign capital into the economy of this region. Foreign investments accelerated its development, contributed to the introduction of advanced forms of organization of industrial production. But along with undoubted advantages, the introduction of foreign capital into the economies of Latin American countries also had negative consequences: this increased disproportions in the development of the national economy of these countries.

In the 19th century, England was the leader in terms of the amount of investments invested in the economies of Latin American countries. However, since the end of the century, Germany and especially the United States have become more active in this field. The United States already had a fairly strong foothold in Mexico and the Caribbean. After the Spanish-American War of 1898, they essentially annexed Puerto Rico and established almost complete control over formally independent Cuba. Great importance in the plans of the United States was given to the Panama Canal, opened in August 1914. This event radically changed the entire dynamics of economic ties in this region.

To characterize the type of states that have developed as a result of specific relations between the United States and the countries of Central America, they began to use a special term - "banana republics", that is, formally legally independent states, in fact, completely dependent on the scale of exports of tropical crops to the United States grown in these countries. Using the ideas of Pan-Americanism, the United States tried to present itself as the spokesman for the interests and aspirations of the entire population of the New World.

The nature of the development of Latin American society was greatly influenced by the complex ethnic processes that unfolded in its body. The interaction of different cultures and traditions - Indian, Negro, European - led to the formation of very peculiar and colorful ethnopsychological communities in these countries. All this, in turn, affected the nature of political culture, the specifics of the entire political process. The unstable state of Latin American society, a peculiar political culture, multiplied by an abundance of intricate socio-economic problems, gave rise to high instability of the political systems of Latin American countries, frequent coups d'etat, uprisings, revolutions, determined the great role of violence and illegitimate means of political struggle. In most countries, authoritarian regimes were in power, relying on the army. In political struggle, in mass popular movements, their participants, as a rule, united not around some programs, slogans or demands, but around leaders - caudillo (leader).

If in Europe and North America the foundations of civil society had already taken shape by that time, in Latin America, even in the most developed countries, this was still far away. Although formally there were republican institutions, there were constitutions, often written off from a similar document in force in the United States, one could speak of democracy in Latin America only as a form that covered the authoritarian domination of local elites.

At the very end of the 19th century, socialist ideas began to penetrate Latin America. The first Latin American country where a socialist party arose was Argentina (1896). Then similar parties appeared in Chile and Uruguay. Just as in Southern Europe, in Latin America anarchists confidently competed with the socialists, whose ideas and tactics appealed to the lower classes of Latin American society. It is characteristic that precisely those countries where socialist parties arose were leaders in the process of the formation of civil society and the formation of a democratic political system.

It was a very contradictory process in which conservative, liberal-reformist and revolutionary tendencies were bizarrely intertwined. In different countries, their ratio was not the same, but it was their resultant that determined the general dynamics of the development of Latin American society. If liberal-reformist tendencies, with certain reservations, determined the dynamics of the development of Chile, Uruguay, and partly Argentina, conservative-protective tendencies dominated the "banana republics" of Central America, the Caribbean islands, Venezuela, then Mexico became the clearest embodiment of the revolutionary trend in the development of society, where in 1910, the largest and most profound revolutionary uprising in Latin America in the first half of the 20th century broke out.

Revolution in Mexico (1910–1917)

The revolution in Mexico that broke out in 1910 had a huge impact on the entire subsequent history of this one of the largest countries in Latin America. Having destroyed many vestiges inherited from the previous era, it cleared the way for the rapid progress of Mexican society, predetermined its leading position in many areas of socio-economic and political development in the Latin American region. She revealed the complex correlation of revolutionary and liberal-reformist tendencies in the formation of civil society, democratic political institutions and social progress in general.

Since 1877, the dictatorship of P. Diaz was established in Mexico. At first, he enjoyed a certain popularity in society. Being an outstanding personality, he managed to restore elementary order, achieved stability in the socio-political sphere and promised to strive for further progress in this area, to strengthen national sovereignty. However, gradually his regime acquired more and more pronounced features of an open dictatorship, based on a narrow layer of the oligarchic elite, with a corrupt bureaucracy and extensive repressive organs.

It is not surprising that social tension began to grow in society, the support of the dictatorship was reduced, but the opposition gradually grew and strengthened. By the beginning of the revolution, F. Madero was considered its leader. Since 1905, he published the newspaper Democracy, around which moderate circles of the opposition were grouped. Feeling the growth of opposition sentiments, Diaz intensified repression. In this situation, Madero, forced to flee to the United States, developed the "Plan of San Luis Potosi." Since there was no dialogue with Diaz, it was about preparing to overthrow him. The uprising was scheduled for November 20, 1910, but a few days before the scheduled date, police agents became aware of this, and a wave of repression swept the country. As a result, the uprising broke out spontaneously.

In the desert regions of northern Mexico and in the jungles in the south of the country, partisan detachments led by F. Villa and E. Zapata successfully operated. In 1911, Madero returned to Mexico. The initiative began to pass to opponents of the Diaz regime. It became increasingly clear that the days of the dictatorship were numbered. In this situation, the question of the nature of the future government sharply arose. In early May, Madero formed his own government. Negotiations began between him and Diaz, which led to the following agreement: Diaz resigns, hostilities cease, partisan detachments disband, the country is ruled by the Provisional Government until the President is elected.

On May 24, 1911, uprisings broke out in Mexico City. Diaz, without waiting for Madero's arrival, thought it best to flee abroad. The dictatorship was overthrown. In an effort to prevent US interference in the flaring up conflict, the moderate circles of the opposition considered it best to invite Mexican Ambassador to the United States F. de la Barra, who had numerous connections in Washington, to the post of head of the Provisional Government. This did not suit the radical circles, especially Salat. Nevertheless, in October 1911, without any special excesses, it was possible to hold presidential elections, in which Madero won.

The key issue facing the new government was agrarian. The peasants expected from her the return of those lands that had been taken from them under Diaz. However, Madero was in no hurry with this. Then Zapata, who was still in command of a large partisan unit, came up with his own plan for solving the agrarian problem (the Ayalla plan). It provided for the immediate return to the Indian communities of the lands taken from them, the confiscation of the lands of Diaz's supporters. Zapata demanded severe punishment for the followers of the former dictator. Understanding the attractiveness of Zapata's ideas in the eyes of the broad peasant masses, Madero tried to seize the initiative from him: he announced the creation of a special commission to study the problems raised in the "Ayalla plan".

Madero's position was complicated not only by the fact that he was under strong pressure from the left. The new government initially faced a clearly unfriendly attitude from the United States. The Americans maintained ties with Diaz's supporters and fiercely criticized Madero for what they considered insufficient rigidity in relations with the leaders of radical groups. Not without their help, conservative circles noticeably intensified their anti-government activities. The real threat of losing mass support hung over the new government.

In an effort to prevent this scenario, Madero tried to expand his social base by attracting the labor movement to his side. In 1912, a special department of labor was created in the government, designed to develop state policy in the field of labor relations. The government has taken the path of encouraging the formation of trade unions. From the very beginning, there was fierce competition between supporters of anarchists and adherents of the concept of Christian trade unions, popular in Latin America. Although the government agreed by law to limit the working day to 10 hours, this was clearly not enough to establish sustainable, constructive contacts with the labor movement.

The supporters of the former regime took advantage of the problems and difficulties faced by the new authorities. Using the support of the United States, relying on the top of the army and representatives of the old oligarchy, they were preparing for a decisive clash with the government, hoping to restore the old order. Back in October 1912, the nephew of the deposed dictator F. Diaz raised an uprising in the largest port city of Mexico, Veracruz, which, however, was suppressed. This, however, was an important symptom, indicating the brewing of a socio-political crisis.

The government could not meet him fully armed. In February 1913, an uprising broke out in Mexico City, as a result of which General Huerta seized power. Madero was arrested and shot. This event was the beginning of a new, even more violent round of civil war, because not only the leaders of the largest partisan formations, but also many governors refused to recognize the government of Huerta.

The governor of the state of Coahuila, V. Carranza, quickly advanced to the role of leaders of Huerta's opponents. In March 1913, he promulgated the so-called Guadalupe Plan, in which he called on the people of Mexico to take up armed struggle against Huerta. By the autumn of 1913, all of northern Mexico was in the hands of Huerta's opponents, who were called constitutionalists. The successes of the radical forces increasingly alarmed the US government, which, not without reason, feared that if they won, American interests and American property would be threatened. Clouds were gathering more and more over Mexico: the United States was preparing for open intervention.

The external threat did not reduce the intensity of the civil war. The situation was still extremely confusing. Mexico City and the surrounding areas were controlled by the troops of General Huerta. The northern states of the country were in the hands of one of the most prominent leaders of the radical forces, F. Villa. In the states of Sonora and Coahuila, supporters of Carranza held power. In the south of the country, the leader of the largest partisan unit Salata enjoyed great influence.

Despite the fact that most of the regular army was subordinate to the government of Huerta, the situation of the latter worsened every day. The broad strata of the population that came into motion during the revolution demanded changes, passionately dreamed of a better life, and Huerta in every possible way prevented the destruction of those socio-political obstacles that hampered the reorganization in society. This predetermined his fate. In the summer of 1914, his troops were defeated, and he himself fled the country.

The new Mexican government was led by Carranza. Being the leader of moderate circles, he nevertheless could not ignore the position of the radical forces and their leaders - Villa and Zapata. Those were supporters of the fastest and most profound transformations in the sphere of socio-economic relations. Carranza suggested discussing all controversial issues at the congress of constitutionalists, scheduled for October 1, 1914. After serious hesitation, the leaders of the partisan formations agreed. The congress, as was to be expected, was unable to make fundamental decisions. However, the whole stormy atmosphere that reigned in society convinced Carranza of the need to move towards the demands of radical forces.

In January 1915, he solemnly promised to return to the peasants the lands expropriated from them by the Diaz regime. A serious increase in Carranza's authority was given by his steps to limit the rights of foreign investors in Mexico. First of all, it concerned the oil industry. Carranza paid great attention to establishing contacts with trade unions. In February 1915, an agreement on cooperation was concluded between them and the government. In accordance with it, worker battalions began to form, which the government intended to use as a counterweight to the detachments of Villa and Salata, which consisted of peasants. The idea of ​​opposing the workers to the peasants gave Carranza a chance to become an arbiter in the fierce confrontation of social forces that was tearing apart Mexican society.

Carranza's position was complicated by two circumstances. First, it is the general economic situation. Under the conditions of a cruel and bloody war, the Mexican economy, which already did not have a serious margin of safety, was in a difficult state. It was impossible to improve the life of the main part of the population in such a situation. Another danger loomed from outside. In the United States, in the ruling establishment, they were increasingly negative about what was happening in Mexico.

The year 1916 turned out to be perhaps the most difficult for both the Mexican Revolution and personally for Carranza. The difficult economic situation caused a sharp conflict between the government and the trade unions, who demanded from him effective measures to improve the situation of the workers. The situation became so aggravated that the head of government issued a decree on the dissolution of the workers' battalions and on a sharp increase in penalties for participating in strikes. The situation became even more complicated after, in March 1916, the Americans, using the border incident as a pretext for intervening in events in Mexico, launched an invasion of that country. External danger consolidated the revolutionary camp for a while, forced the government to toughen its position with regard to foreign, primarily American, property in Mexico. The fight against the invaders lasted almost a year and ended in February 1917 with the withdrawal of American troops from Mexico.

Using the temporary consolidation of all supporters of revolutionary changes, Carranza proposed to convene a Constituent Assembly to develop a new Constitution. It opened on December 1, 1916. In addition to discussing constitutional issues proper, its delegates were concerned about several other problems: the agrarian question, the labor question, and the fate of foreign investment. Two groups quickly formed - a moderate group led by Carranza and a radical group led by A. Enriquez. After a heated debate in February 1917, the text of the Constitution was finally approved.

It was in the full sense of the word the Constitution of the new generation, because in addition to the issues of the state system itself, a lot of attention was paid to socio-economic problems. Thus, the new Basic Law of the country provided for the right to expropriate large landed property, and condemned the practice of peonage. Much attention was paid to the problems of labor relations in it: an 8-hour working day was established, a 6-day working week and a minimum wage were introduced, the payment of wages in goods was prohibited, etc. The right to strike and conclude collective agreements was assigned to workers, the church was deprived of the right property ownership. The rights of foreigners to own and dispose of property were limited. They were required to obey local laws. Finally, the nation was recognized as having the right to control the subsoil and the wealth contained in it.

The Mexican Constitution of 1917 was the most democratic of all documents of this kind that existed at that time. It opened a new page in the development of constitutional law and was a direct consequence of the profound changes that took place in Mexican society under the influence of the revolution. It radically changed the face of Mexico, destroyed many remnants of the "old order" that hindered the country's movement along the path of social progress. By paying a heavy price for these radical transformations, the Mexicans at the same time created a good springboard for turning their country into one of the most developed, democratic and stable states in Latin America.