Years ago, I heard something about a movement to create a “Carribean Republic” out of the various little islands in the Carribean. Did anything ever come of this, or has the movement fizzed out?
There was the West Indies Federation ~ 50 years ago. It was to bring the former British Caribbean colonies together into a single federation, but it didn’t last.
There is the Caribbean Court of Justice, designed to be a final court of appeal for the numerous small Caribbean countries which belong to the Commonwealth, to replace the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but it hasn’t really taken off. One problem is that the JCPC ruled that Jamaica’s constitution does not allow Jamaica to substitute the Caribbean Court for the JCPC without a constitutional amendment. Since Jamaica is one of the big countries in the West Indies, if it doesn’t sign on, there’s not much movement for the others to do so.
I just searched Google for “Costa Rica (etc.) license plate.”
That’s not accurate at all. It certainly didn’t apply to the Jamestown colonists, who were looking for gold or other wealth. It may have applied to some of the religious colonists in New England, but not generally to the rest of the American colonies.
Simon Bolivar wanted a USLA. The proposed union fell apart because there were no common interests, and South America is vast. Chile is cut off from Argentina (Andes Mountains), Bolivia is isolated from Peru (deserts), Venezuela is isolated from Columbia (jungles). Maybe, as the MERCOSUR organization becomes more important, there could be a federation.
Shared language and culture can still be divided by patriotism.
Otherwise why aren’t Canada and the U.S. joined together as one nation ?
Perhaps I didn’t phrase it well, but what I meant was that those considered to be fleeing religious persecution were often actually trying to go somewhere where they would not be prevented from practising their persecutory religion. Home was too liberal, not too intolerant, for them. Of course many others went for non-religious reasons.
I know it is common to see Mexican state formation in the nineteenth century as something of a “failure” given the loss of lands to the United States, the loss of Central America, and the frequent dictatorships and coups…and it was a mess.
But I also think it is something of a miracle that Mexico did not disintegrate further, given its transportation barriers and the vast cultural differences among its states. Oaxaca is as different from Nuevo León as any two South American republics. Mexico could easily be at least three or four separate nations now. Guadalajara or Monterrey could easily be national capitals. The same is true for Colombia or Argentina I suppose.
Having said that, some of the factors inhibiting a larger Hispano-American Union have been brought up - the vast differences and rugged terrain, the role of local elites who were unwilling to give up power to federations, and cultural and ethnic divisions. However, I think the cultural differences were a small factor, as many Latin American boundaries do not follow obvious divides in ethnicity, dialect, or way of life.
To the comment that the American Revolution was a “white” political movement - in Latin America the wars of independence were initially led by the Creole class (Francisco Miranda, Simón Bolívar, Miguel Hidalgo, José de San Martín, Bernardo O´Higgins, et. al). Many indigenous people were wary of a Creole led independence movement, as it threatened rights granted by the Spanish crown.
Over time, Mestizos and other mixed-race Castas led significant rebellions that became part of the independence movement, but these rebellions were often against the Creoles as much as they were against Spanish authority. In Mexico, this Casta revolt (Morelos, Guerrero) essentially became the independence movement over time, and forced the Creoles establishment to compromise with the Casta leaders to create an independent Mexico. I would argue this arrangement was part of Mexico´s relative “success.” In northern South America, independence was won after Bolívar added emancipation and greater inclusion to his movement. After independence, Bolívar did not fully deliver on some of these promises, and many Casta soldiers mutinied, this contributed to the breakup of Gran Colombia.
Peru, by contrast, maintained slavery for decades after independence. So Peru would not be easily incorporated in a union that had abolished slavery. In short, each region had a different path to independence, and each new nation had its own distinct framework (i.e. some immediately abolished the “Republic of Indians,” others maintained a sharp legal divide between Native and non-Native polities).
Thanks for the detailed replies folks, I’m learning a lot so far that’s for sure.
Excellent teaching, syncrolecyne. Thanks.
After it’s monarchy was abolished Brazil’s long form name was “the Republic of the United States of Brazil” before it was switched to the “Federative Republic of Brazil” in the 1960s.
And Nicaragua’s and El Salvador’s are virtually indistinguishable at any respectable distance – with their respective National Seals in the center being themselves in turn a version of of the old Central American Union’s (which they kept trying and failing to put back in business through the whole 19th Century).
Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela’s origins as part of Gran Colombia is also visible in their flags.
I don’t know if they’re right, but on Q.I. they said that the Plymouth Fathers left England because in England they were too tolerant about religion, and they didn’t like that at all !
Right, Mexico was in the process of disintigrating when the Mexican-American war came along.
Strangely, it was likely the Mexican-American war that had Mexico survive mostly intact. The war did two things- it split off territories that Mexico couldn’t hope to govern or control, and the payment paid by the USA staved off Bankruptcy.
Then, it also gave them someone to hate and blame, which unified the various states. The war and treaty which is so hotly disparaged South of the Border is what actually saved them. Ironic.
It also made the USA decide to protect Mexico from outside European Imperialism.
IIRC the English were remarkably intolerant - not that they burned people at the stake (at least, since Queen Mary) but they had laws that regulated what sort of religious activity could happen; after Cromwell’ government was given the heave-ho, the royalists in 1660 were always wary of radically more wacky puritan religions - keeping in mind that zeal had taken off the last king’s head. They enacted progressively more restrictive laws. Penn, for example wa expelled from Oxford as a student for refusing to partake in Anglican services, and years later also from Cambridge. He was arrested several times, most famously when his trial established the concept of jury independence. (The jury that refused to convict him for preaching against the Church of England was arrested and told it could gain its release by returnng the proper verdict. They refused)
not that the Puritans in New England were the soul of tolerance, but they did not have things easy back home.
Those are interesting arguments, especially the need for an “other” to give a nation a sense of purpose. I would only add that the war underlined the abject failure of Santa Anna’s brand of conservatism (basically power vested in the military, church hierarchy, and like-minded landowners) and promoted Mexican liberals to launch an effort at reform. After false starts, a War of Reform and a French Intervention, the liberals triumphed by 1867 and created a stronger state that could promote railroads and promote some degree of national unity.
The official name of the country we call Mexico is, to this day, United Mexican States (Spanish: Estados Unidos Mexicanos). Several other Latin American countries used an analogous name at some part of their history, including Venezuela until 1953
Estados Unidos de Venezuela - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre