Introduction

revolutions, nations, and

a new industrial world
John Tutino

From 1500 to 1800, the Amer­i­cas w ­ ere a key part of a world of empires and
global trades.1 In the 1780s, New Spain drove silver production to new heights,
concentrating wealth in Mexico City, by far the hemi­sphere’s leading center
of population and power. In the same de­cade, French Saint Domingue led the
Atlantic world in sugar production and the concentration of enslaved laborers.
Meanwhile, a fledgling United States was escaping British rule, building a re-
publican polity, and searching for commercial prosperity—­its ­free ­people
enjoying solid well-­being while a large enslaved minority saw bondage confirmed
in a new constitution.
By 1850, the United States, having just claimed in war vast territories long
tied to New Spain and then Mexico, was driving ­toward continental hege-
mony: southern cotton growers worked slave laborers to supply British mills
that ruled a new industrial world economy; New E ­ ng­land mills competed to

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/501804/9780822374305-001.pdf

by FLACSO - FACULTAD LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIENCIAS SOCIALES user
on 02 March 2018
 profit in that economy; and ­free settlers drove commercial farming across a vast
Mississippi basin into lands taken from displaced native ­peoples. At the same
time, Mexico, its once dynamic silver economy fallen in the face of war and
insurgency ­after 1810, faced endemic po­liti­cal conflicts while it searched for a
new economy in a shrunken territory. And Haiti, built by revolutionary slaves
in once rich Saint Domingue, consolidated a society of f­ amily cultivation and
limited exports—­excluded from the new global industrial economy. All would
face po­liti­cal conflicts in the de­cades to come. But in the United States, Civil
War led to an expansive prosperity; for Mexico, Reform Wars led to growing
dependence on U.S. capital and markets; and in Haiti, internal conflicts came
with continuing poverty and commercial exclusion.
The dramatic changes that marked the emergence of the United States,
Mexico, and Haiti as nations only begin to illustrate the depth and complex-
ity of the larger and more diverse transformations that created new countries
across the Amer­i­cas during the de­cades ­after 1770. ­After centuries in which Eu­
ro­pean monarchs claimed sovereignty, diverse Christianities ­shaped the lives
of the power­ful, the colonized, and the enslaved, and dynamic trades led by
Spanish American silver and Atlantic sugar and slavery made the hemi­sphere
central to global trades—­every­thing seemed to change, creatively for some,
destructively for ­others.
During the ­century ­after 1750 ­people across the Amer­i­cas fought and
negotiated, traded and labored to forge new polities and new economies—­
thus new countries. In some regions, insurrectionary movements forced new
social relations: in Haiti, where revolutionary slaves ended slavery and took
the land; in core regions of Mexico, where insurgent communities took new
control of production; in diverse other places where indigenous ­peoples found
new autonomies as nations strug­gled to find po­liti­cal stability and commercial
prosperity. Elsewhere, old social relations endured: in expansions of slave ­labor
in Brazil, Cuba, and the U.S. South; in continuing po­liti­cal exclusions of many
native ­peoples across the hemi­sphere. Diverse p­ eoples came out of old empires
in unimagined ways. They built states with new bound­aries, new citizenships,
new social relationships, and new ways of production.
While making new countries, the ­people of the Amer­i­cas saw their his-
tories diverge in many ways. Many founded republics, yet Brazil became an
empire and Cuba remained a colony. Some former colonies joined together
to become United States; ­others fragmented into small nations, as in Central
Ame­rica. And while forging such diversity, the new countries of the Amer­i­cas
stayed tied to a rapidly changing world economy. They emerged during the rise
of a new industrial capitalism forged in E ­ ng­land ­after 1800 and soon replicated
2 — John Tutino

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/501804/9780822374305-001.pdf

by FLACSO - FACULTAD LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIENCIAS SOCIALES user
on 02 March 2018
 in the northeastern United States. The rest of the Amer­i­cas adapted. Some
prospered while many strug­gled.
The aims and uncertainties of nation making are central concerns of ­every
national history.2 In this volume we analyze the emergence of nations (and
Cuba’s colonial per­sis­tence) across the hemi­sphere in the light of changing
global relationships. Too often, the conflicts that led to the new American nations
and the innovations that generated the British industrial revolution appear as
simultaneous but separate—­the definition of historical coincidence. We see
them as simultaneous and inseparable. The Amer­ic­ as played key roles in the
Atlantic conflicts that led to new nations and in the global transformation that
led to industrial capitalism. We explore how New World ­peoples both joined
in and adapted to key changes in the world economy ­after 1780, how they
engaged in forging liberal and republican polities, and how eight new coun-
tries navigated times of conflictive change: four coming out of Atlantic slave
colonies—­the United States, Haiti, Cuba (a new country even as it remained a
colony), and Brazil; four built in Spanish American socie­ties with indigenous
majorities—­Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, and Bolivia. We aim to understand how
new countries emerged and how they diverged while industrial capitalism ­rose
to shape the nineteenth-­century world.

In Search of an Integrated History

Too often, all this has been studied separately. Yet the founding dynamism of
the early American silver and sugar economies, the late eighteenth-­century
challenges of war and po­liti­cal innovation, the revolutionary destruction of key
colonies,3 and the strug­g les to build nations in a changing global economy
demand integrated analy­sis if we are to understand the transformation of the
Amer­i­cas ­after 1750—­and how conflicts ­there contributed to the rise of British
and ­later U.S. industrial capitalism.4
It is a tall order, of course, to integrate the global and the local, the eco-
nomic and the po­liti­cal, along with social conflicts and cultural debates and
innovations—­across a diverse hemi­sphere. ­There have been illuminating at-
tempts: In his classic study of The Spanish American Revolutions, 1808–1826,
John Lynch linked hemispheric po­liti­cal pro­cesses and local conflicts in a work
that included most of the continent and the majority of its ­peoples—­those
subject to Spanish sovereignty in 1800.5 Robin Blackburn soon followed with
the Overthrow of Colonial Slavery, 1776–1848, analyzing one pervasive conflict
central to the era of in­de­pen­dence across the continent.6 Lester Langley took on
the entire hemi­sphere in his ambitious The Amer­i­cas in the Age of Revolution,
Introduction — 3

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/501804/9780822374305-001.pdf

by FLACSO - FACULTAD LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIENCIAS SOCIALES user
on 02 March 2018
 1750–1850.7 Recently, in Empires of the Atlantic World, J. H. Elliott compared
key regions of Spanish and British Ame­rica from their colonial origins through
in­de­pen­dence,8 and Jeremy Adelman offered Sovereignty and Revolution in the
Iberian Atlantic, engaging Spanish and Portuguese South Ame­rica from Carta-
gena to Buenos Aires.9 All make impor­tant contributions: Lynch by emphasizing
the local complexities of the Spanish American conflicts; Blackburn by focus-
ing us on the breadth and complexity of the prob­lem of slavery; Langley by
demonstrating the necessity of a hemispheric analy­sis; Elliott by insisting on a
comparative vision set in a long historical perspective; Adelman by emphasizing
that within Spanish and Portuguese domains imperial breakdown preceded
the contested emergence of national goals and states.
Still, all remain limited: Lynch brought his regionally grounded and mostly
po­liti­cal vision only to Spanish Ame­rica; Blackburn emphasized the demise
of slavery, downplaying its power­ful expansions in nineteenth-­century Brazil,
Cuba, and the United States; Langley understood Spanish American economic
systems and po­liti­cal pro­cesses but partially; Elliott compared the mainland
colonies of Spanish and British Ame­rica—­the former pivotal, the latter second-
ary to the eighteenth-­century world—­leaving key Ca­rib­bean plantation regions
aside; and Adelman remained in Atlantic South Ame­rica, leaving ­others
to integrate the often-­conflictive Ca­rib­bean, Andean, and Mexican–­Central
American sequences. The search for an integrated vision of the transformation
the Amer­i­cas from 1750 to 1870 remains a challenge.
In recent years, the challenge has become more complex. Three key histori-
cal advances have illuminated and complicated analy­sis of an era too long seen
­either as an Age of Revolution or the Era of In­de­pen­dence: First, a turn to a
global view of history combined with a rethinking of the trajectory of the global
economy have combined to emphasize the centrality of Asia around 1500, the
importance of the Amer­i­cas in global trades from the sixteenth c­ entury, and
the late rise of a Eu­ro­pean hegemony that only consolidated a­ fter 1800. Sec-
ond, new understandings of the Haitian Revolution and of insurgent roles in
Mexican in­de­pen­dence have brought popu­lar demands and the changes they
forced to the center of key conflicts in the age of revolutions. Third, a new ap-
preciation of the interplay of war, po­liti­cal conflict, and liberal innovation in
the Hispanic world a­ fter 1808 has brought Spain and its Amer­i­cas to the center
of new analyses of the origins of regimes of popu­lar sovereignty. Recognition
of each innovation underscores the importance and the difficulty of the larger
analytical challenge.
Through most of the twentieth ­century, economic history offered a clear
and too s­imple vision: the industrial capitalism that s­haped the world a­ fter
4 — John Tutino

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/501804/9780822374305-001.pdf

by FLACSO - FACULTAD LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIENCIAS SOCIALES user
on 02 March 2018
 1800 was a natu­ral, almost inevitable result of Anglo-­European-­Protestant cul-
ture and institutions. ­Eng­land, Western Eu­rope, and the United States led—­
and the world followed. Then, in the context of the shift to globalization in
the 1990s, new studies challenged the presumptive reign of Anglo-­European
primacy in global economic history. A series of studies, led by Kenneth Pomer-
anz’s The ­Great Divergence: China, Eu­rope, and the Making of the Modern
World Economy, have shown that China led the world eco­nom­ically around 1500
and that Eu­ro­pean industrial eminence came a­ fter 1770—­precisely during the
de­cades of New World transformation.10 Then economists Ronald Findlay and
Kevin O’Rourke gave us Power and Plenty: Trade, War, and the World Economy
in the Second Millennium, confirming the early dominance of China and India,
the late rise of industrial Europe—­and the importance of New World silver in
linking and stimulating Asian and Eu­ro­pean economies a­ fter 1550. They, too,
confirm the late rise of Europe—­and emphasize the importance of the Euro-­
Atlantic wars of 1750–1830 in the rise of Anglo-­American industrial hegemony.11
And now Sven Beckert’s Empire of Cotton details the rise of industrial capitalism
during the same pivotal de­cades as a transatlantic pro­cess tying a long develop-
ing “war capitalism” built on empire and slavery to a rising industrial system in
­Eng­land, in the pro­cess transforming the world.12
Our analyses w ­ ill suggest that to begin to grasp the radical reconstruction
of the world from 1750 to 1850, we must see the collapse of the silver capital-
ism that was grounded in Spanish Ame­rica and integrated the Amer­i­cas, Asia,
and Eu­rope from 1550 to 1810.13 We must also recognized the challenges to and
per­sis­tence of the war capitalism of slave-­based production and trades that con-
tinued to supply essential cotton and complementary sugar and coffee to in-
dustrializing Eu­rope and North Ame­rica past 1850. And we must see all that as
linked to the technological innovations and capital accumulations that drove
the industrial revolution beginning in western Britain.14
Meanwhile, scholars have also been rethinking the historical importance
and impact of popu­lar revolutionary movements in Saint Domingue (as it
became Haiti) and New Spain (as it became Mexico). Carolyn Fick began the
pro­cess in The Making of Haiti, showing that armed ex-­slaves forced not only
the abolition of slavery, but also the collapse of the plantation economy so piv-
otal to French participation in Atlantic trade and Eu­ro­pean power politics.15
In Avengers of the New World Laurent Dubois broadened and confirmed the
emphasis that adamant and armed former slaves ended Saint Domingue’s role
as the largest and most profitable producer of sugar and the greatest purchaser
of slaves in the Atlantic world.16 Meanwhile, I began to understand that the
silver economy of New Spain continued to soar at historic levels, stimulating
Introduction — 5

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/501804/9780822374305-001.pdf

by FLACSO - FACULTAD LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIENCIAS SOCIALES user
on 02 March 2018
 global trades (and funding wars) to 1810—­when the Bajío, the leading New
World center of silver mining, textile manufacturing, and irrigated commer-
cial cultivation, exploded in a popu­lar rising that lasted a de­cade. Insurgents
undermined silver production and turned a commercial economy to ­family
production (as did the slaves in Haiti).17 Now, in En el espejo haitiano, Luis
Fernando Granados has detailed how the popu­lar power first forged in revolu-
tionary Haiti proliferated across diverse American regions to culminate in the
insurgencies that transformed the Bajío beginning in 1810.18
It is now clear that by 1804 Haitian revolutionaries had destroyed war capi-
talism in Saint Domingue and crippled France’s chances to join in the early
rise of industrial capitalism. The same revolution drove war cap­i­tal­ists working
slave laborers to expand sugar production in Cuba, sugar and coffee in Brazil, and
cotton cultivation across the U.S. South—­the latter an essential component of
the industrial revolution. Soon a­ fter, beginning in 1810, Bajío revolutionaries
took down the silver capitalism that had long integrated global trades, bring-
ing China to crisis and opening the way for the rise of the industrialism so
celebrated for its British innovations—­while so many try not to see its role in
expanding slavery. On a global scale, silver capitalism and war capitalism ­rose
together from the sixteenth c­ entury to shape early global commercial capital-
ism. Then when silver capitalism collapsed and industrial capitalism r­ ose in the
early nineteenth c­ entury, the war capitalism grounded in slave l­abor persisted
to enable the transition. In the pro­cess, the economies of Spanish Ame­rica saw
global importance give way to the marginalities ­later called underdevelopment.
Haitians grappled with new autonomies that locked them into poverty. Cuba
and Brazil found new prosperities in expanding slave production for industrial-
izing markets. And the United States mixed the expanded war capitalism of a
South built on slavery with the emerging industries of an industrial North and
a westward expansion of commercial cultivation into lands taken from natives
and Mexicans to become the New World hegemon of a new global industrial
capitalism.
While ­these fundamental socioeconomic conflicts and changes ­were ­under
way, po­liti­cal movements, conflicts, and revolutions moved the Amer­i­cas and
the Atlantic world ­toward new polities. Empires of divine right faced chal-
lenges; nations proclaiming popu­lar sovereignties r­ose to reshape the Amer­
i­cas a­ fter 1810. A vast scholarship on Eu­rope and the Amer­i­cas between 1765
and 1830 has focused on ­these impor­tant developments.19 Yet too often, ana-
lysts imagine a derivative and imitative pro­cess in which po­liti­cal innovations
forged in Anglo-­American domains and reenergized in French revolutionary

6 — John Tutino

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/501804/9780822374305-001.pdf

by FLACSO - FACULTAD LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIENCIAS SOCIALES user
on 02 March 2018
 worlds imposed themselves on Iberian Americans when they came late to na-
tion making.
Since the 1990s, scholars have reanalyzed the histories of in­de­pen­dence in
Iberia and the Amer­i­cas with new studies of the Hispanic po­liti­cal revolution
that led to the Cádiz Constitution of 1812. That charter aimed to hold Spain
and its Amer­i­cas together in opposition to Napoleon’s 1808 invasion and
occupation of Spain. Mostly implemented in the Amer­i­cas (most of Spain was
occupied by the French), it contributed in complex and conflictive ways to the
eventual rise of new republics. And while including some parallels with Anglo-­
American and French developments, the Cádiz pro­cess had deep roots in His-
panic traditions of popu­lar sovereignty as old as ­those in ­Eng­land and France.
The new scholarship about Ibero-­American in­de­pen­dence began with
François-Xavier Guerra’s Modernidades e independencias20 and culminated
in Roberto Breña’s El primer liberalismo español y los procesos de emancipación
de América, 1808–1824.21 The work came just in time to shape an explosion
of studies focused on the cele­brations of in­de­pen­dence in the bicentennials of
1810. A vision of Cádiz liberalism as pivotal to Spanish American in­de­pen­dence
marked conferences often funded by national states implementing neoliberalism.
At times, war and trade, strongmen and insurgents faded from view. Still, the
scholarship on the rise of a deeply Hispanic liberalism within the conflicts that
led to Spanish American in­de­pen­dence was mostly positive—­and further fueled
the need to rethink the transformation of the Amer­i­cas between 1750 and 1850.
From the sixteenth ­century, ­peoples across the Amer­i­cas lived within Eu­
ro­pean empires while tied to trades that spanned the globe. A ­ fter 1760, they
joined in unpre­ce­dented po­liti­cal conflicts ­shaped by new visions of popu­lar
sovereignty and electoral participation. Many broke with empires and built
new polities—­while an unpre­ce­dented industrial concentration ­rose in Britain
and reshaped the world economy. Nation builders claimed dif­fer­ent resources,
engaged distinct indigenous and colonial traditions, and found uncertain op-
portunities in a world facing rapid economic change. Economic, po­liti­cal, and
social outcomes diverged everywhere. How did broad hemispheric participa-
tion in shared economic and po­liti­cal challenges and opportunities lead to new
countries with diverging trajectories in a nineteenth-­century world driven by
industrial capitalism? No one scholar is ready to take on that pivotal analytical
challenge.
To accelerate the conversation a group of scholars who had already written
deep studies of key regions and questions illuminating the era of in­de­pen­dence
across the Amer­i­cas met at Georgetown University u­ nder the auspices of the

Introduction — 7

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/501804/9780822374305-001.pdf

by FLACSO - FACULTAD LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIENCIAS SOCIALES user
on 02 March 2018
 Amer­i­cas Initiative. We began with a challenge: without losing sight of the po­
liti­cal, social, and cultural dynamics of the nation making we knew so well,
how had each region experienced the changing economic dynamics of the era?
The chapters that follow emerged from a pro­cess of sharing, discussion, and
revision. We engage common questions, but we offer no single thesis to explain
the emergence of new countries across the Amer­i­cas ­after 1750 and their diverse
roles in the nineteenth-­century world.
Common themes do link our studies: Imperial legacies s­haped conflicts
and debates everywhere. In Atlantic plantation colonies, slavery was always
a key question: would it end, persist, change, or expand? In highland Span-
ish Ame­rica, the role of the indigenous republics that gave native majorities
land and limited self-­rule, and held them in subordination, focused pivotal
debates. And of course, imperial rule itself was debated. That it ended almost
everywhere should not mask the enduring strength of groups that preferred
to stay in the empires: Tories in the United States fled to Canada; Mexico’s
1821 Plan de Iguala mobilized a co­ali­tion that led to in­de­pen­dence by calling
Spanish king Fernando to Mexico; Brazil, home to Portuguese regent and then
king João from 1808 to 1821, became in­de­pen­dent in 1822 by proclaiming his
heir, Prince Pedro, emperor of Brazil. And Cuba remained the “most loyal” of
Spain’s American colonies.
Old regimes did not fall without a fight; wars ­were everywhere. They
­were inter­national and internal, often at the same time. They w ­ ere po­liti­cal and
social, with popu­lar risings sometimes furthering po­liti­cal leaders’ agendas, some-
times limiting the fighters and resources available for state making. The U.S. war
for in­de­pen­dence was an international war; its rebels w ­ ere backed by France
and funded by Spain (with pesos from New Spain). The Wars of 1793 to 1815
set off by the French Revolution and Napoleonic expansion ­were inseparable
from the Haitian Revolution, the U.S. acquisition of Louisiana, the flight of
the Portuguese court to Brazil, the opening conflicts of the Spanish American
wars for In­de­pen­dence, and the consolidation of U.S. in­de­pen­dence in the War
of 1812. Within the wars, popu­lar insurgencies ­were most power­ful in Haiti,
Spain, and New Spain—­yet they played roles nearly everywhere.
New visions of republican government and liberal institutions ­were also
everywhere—­discussed, debated, and fought about while variously defined.
Famously, the first New World war for in­de­pen­dence was fought to end Brit-
ish rule and forge republican governance in the United States. The Haitian
Revolution began amid a search to bring constitutional order and universal
rights to a French monarchy facing bankruptcy while deeply dependent on its
hugely profitable and exploitative slave colony in Saint Domingue. And when
8 — John Tutino

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/501804/9780822374305-001.pdf

by FLACSO - FACULTAD LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIENCIAS SOCIALES user
on 02 March 2018
 Napoleon’s 1807–1808 invasion of Iberia sent the Portuguese court to Rio de
Janeiro and deposed the Spanish Bourbons, guerrilla conflicts across Spain and
debates about sovereignty t­here and in the Amer­ic­ as energized a traditional
Spanish pro­cess of seeking sovereignty grounded in the pueblos (the towns).
The resulting Cortes of Cádiz wrote the liberal charter of 1812; it was endlessly
debated while it helped remake politics and governance in Spain, Portugal, and
their Amer­i­cas.
International and po­liti­cal wars mixed with insurgencies, all laced with
movements for popu­lar sovereignty in government, which stimulated demands
for popu­lar rights—­freedom from slavery, access to land, and more. And all
that combined in complex ways to promote a changing world economy—­
sometimes to force, sometimes to facilitate, sometimes to limit adaptations
to an emerging industrial capitalism. The Haitian and Bajío revolutions took
down the two American engines of eighteenth-­century global trades. Haitians
turned to ­family production and faced exclusion from the Atlantic economy;
Mexicans tried to forge a nation while searching for a new economy—­newly
grounded in f­ amily production. Meanwhile, Cuba and Brazil took advantage
of the commercial withdrawal and then exclusion of Haiti to expand pro-
duction of coffee and sugar, importing more slaves to do the work. The United
States drove the planting of slave-­grown cotton across an expanding South to
supply the rising industrial economy of ­Eng­land—­and soon New ­Eng­land.
Meanwhile, Spanish Americans from Mexico through the Andes strug­gled to
make nations and find prosperity in a new world economy.
The common theme of our studies is divergence—on three dif­fer­ent levels.
Most obvious is the divergence that created more than a dozen new American
nations out of lands long integrated into four Eu­ro­pean empires. And we must
not forget that while the United States claimed in­de­pen­dence, Canada and the
British Ca­rib­bean did not; while slaves forced emancipation and in­de­pen­dence
in Haiti, Guadalupe and Martinique remained French and returned to slavery.
While most of Spanish Ame­rica broke away to become diverse nations, Cuba,
Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, which had delivered New World silver to
Asia, did not. And if all of Portuguese Ame­rica became a Brazilian empire, it
separated from Angola and other regions of Portuguese Africa that sustained
the slave trade—­while the trade carried on. National in­de­pen­dence was nei-
ther universal nor inevitable. It led to diverse new nations while it left diverse
other regions within old empires that had to change. Thus Cuba could both
remain a colony and become a new country.
The second level of divergence was the rise of diversity—­and sometimes of
power­ful separatist movements—­within emerging American nations. Examples
Introduction — 9

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/501804/9780822374305-001.pdf

by FLACSO - FACULTAD LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIENCIAS SOCIALES user
on 02 March 2018
 are legion. The historic integration of the Andean highland core ­under Inca
rule and Spanish colonialism broke apart to create Peru and Bolivia. The co-
lonial Kingdom of Guatemala that ranged from the Isthmus of Tehuantepec
to the Isthmus of Panama took in­de­pen­dence as one—­and then in de­cades of
conflict broke into five nations and the Mexican state of Chiapas. The Guate-
mala that remained strug­gled to integrate three distinct social, cultural, and
economic regions. The fragmentation of Spanish Ame­rica is legendary, furthered
by the economic challenges of the era. Brazil famously held together, but not
without strong forces for separation in the Northeast and South—­strong at-
tempts suppressed by military force backed by British naval power. And it is
worth remembering that Texas’s secession from Mexico spurred the war that
took the vast Mexican North and its assertive indigenous ­peoples into the
United States, in time leading the United States to split into two nations in
1860—­only re­united by a devastating and deadly Civil War.
While nations strug­gled to consolidate and often fragmented, many indig-
enous ­peoples found new in­de­pen­dence. The Comanche r­ ose to become the
dominant power for de­cades in western North Ame­rica.22 Once-­colonized
communities found new autonomies across Spanish American highlands. Our
studies of the emergence of new countries detail how local innovation and en-
during differences emerged from shared historical challenges. Against dreams
of E Pluribus Unum, we found the opposite: from a hemi­sphere of four empires
came a proliferation of diverse countries marked by divergences—­and often by
conflicts—­within.
Their creation, with all their conflicts and diversities, contributed in funda-
mental ways to the third divergence we emphasize: the “­great divergence” that
brought the demise of China and South Asia; the collapse of the global trade in
silver and new challenges to the sugar and slave economies that had long linked
Eu­rope, the Amer­i­cas, Africa, and Asia; and the rise of a new industrial capital-
ism in which production and power concentrated in northwestern Eu­rope
and the northeastern United States, while the rest of the world was pressed to
supply staples—­pivotally, cotton grown by slaves in the  U.S. South—­and to
buy manufactures—­cotton cloth central among them. The creation of diverse
new countries across the Amer­i­cas was a foundational part of the history of
the rise of the North Atlantic, Anglo-­American axis that s­ haped the world in
the ­century ­after 1800. The new countries of the Amer­i­cas ­were born within—
as both cause and consequence of—­the ­great divergence that brought a new era
of global history.23

10 — John Tutino

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/501804/9780822374305-001.pdf

by FLACSO - FACULTAD LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIENCIAS SOCIALES user
on 02 March 2018
 Shared Challenges, Diverging Outcomes
To analyze the emergence of diverging new countries across the Amer­i­cas, we
pres­ent ten studies. Part I offers two chapters on pro­cesses that impacted histo-
ries across the Amer­ic­ as. In “The Amer­i­cas in the Rise of Industrial Capitalism”
I outline how the silver economies of Spanish Ame­rica and the sugar and slave
economies of Atlantic plantation colonies became pivotal to global commerce
­after 1550. Silver, centered in the Andes from 1550 to 1650 and then soaring in
New Spain from 1700 to 1810, made Spain’s Amer­ic­ as essential to trades linking
China, India, the Islamic world, and Eu­rope. Sugar and slavery, pioneered in the
Spanish Ca­rib­bean, consolidated between 1570 and 1640 in Brazil, and domi-
nating the British and French Ca­rib­bean ­after 1680 drove trades tying Eu­rope
and Africa to the Amer­i­cas. Eighteenth-­century competition led to wars and
revolutions that began to destabilize the global economy around 1780. Revolu-
tions in Haiti and the Bajío saw popu­lar forces destroy the leading engines of
New World economic dynamism a­ fter 1790. Meanwhile E ­ ng­land, while fight-
ing long wars to claim Eu­ro­pean, Atlantic, and global hegemony from France
and Spain, built mechanized industries that took off and forced ­every New
World region to adapt in the nineteenth c­ entury. Chapter 1 offers a framework
to understand how diverse regions of the Amer­i­cas lived that complex global
economic transformation.
Amid the transformations driven by wars and revolutions, po­liti­cal actors
and ideologues worked to design new polities based on rising notions of popu­
lar sovereignty and electoral participations. ­These designs and debates ­were
essential to the Thirteen Colonies’ break with British rule to become United
States; they ­were central to the French Revolution, which set the stage for the
Haitian Revolution—­which focused on more fundamental liberations. Com-
ing out of Eu­ro­pean po­liti­cal debates since the seventeenth c­ entury and recent
de­cades of enlightenment thinking, republican proj­ects in Britain, the United
States, and France are deeply studied and well recognized.24 Less recognized
and studied only recently are the parallel seventeenth-­century roots of a His-
panic popu­lar sovereignty that mixed with enlightenment innovations and
revolutionary adaptations to generate the world’s first self-­defined liberalism in
Cádiz between 1810 and 1812—­and to influence the debates of nation making
across Iberia, Latin Ame­rica, and beyond.25
­Because most readers are familiar with the rise of regimes of popu­lar sov-
ereignty in Anglo-­Atlantic and French domains (or can easily gain access to
key studies), yet few ­will know the pivotal role of Cádiz liberalism in Spain,
Portugal, and the Amer­i­cas, we pres­ent Roberto Breña’s chapter 2, “The Cádiz
Liberal Revolution and Spanish American In­de­pen­dence.” It explores the deep
Introduction — 11

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/501804/9780822374305-001.pdf

by FLACSO - FACULTAD LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIENCIAS SOCIALES user
on 02 March 2018
 and complex historic roots of Hispanic liberalism, its consolidation amid the
strug­gle against Napoleon from 1808 to 1814, its limited role in Spain ­under
French occupation, its wide if uneven implementation across Spain’s Amer­i­
cas, its abrogation in 1814, and its return in 1820 in both Spain and its Amer­
i­cas. Designed to create a constitutional monarchy to hold Spain’s empire
together, Cádiz liberalism fueled debates about sovereignty that generated
movements for regional autonomy. Many evolved into conflicts that led to na-
tional in­de­pen­dence, in the pro­cess often limiting the sway of liberal ways as
men on h ­ orse­back took power. Breña’s study of Cádiz liberalism underlines its
transatlantic importance and contradictory reverberations to help frame our
analyses of Cuba, Brazil, Mexico, Guatemala, and the Andes.
Part II pres­ents four chapters analyzing the emergence of new countries in
the slave socie­ties of Atlantic Ame­rica. We begin with Adam Rothman’s study
“Union, Capitalism, and Slavery in the ‘Rising Empire’ of the United States”
­because the mainland British colonies from New ­Eng­land to Georgia w ­ ere
the first to break colonial bonds, and b­ ecause ­after de­cades of expansion and
conflict culminating in the deadly war of 1860–1865, the United States held
together to become the New World country that adapted most profitably to the
world of industrial capitalism. Rothman brings a new hemispheric vision to
the intensely studied and still debated pro­cess that forged the United States.
The war for in­de­pen­dence that created the United States was most innova-
tive in proclaiming popu­lar sovereignty and opening electoral rights—­rights
limited by expanding slavery and enduring racist exclusions. Emerging from
marginality in the first world economy, the United States latched onto Brit-
ish industrialization; southern states became key providers of cotton (raised
by slaves while Britons proclaimed opposition to slavery). During Napoleonic
wars (including the War of 1812 against Britain), northern states turned reluc-
tantly to industry. To gain land to expand cotton and slavery, from the 1820s
southerners colonized Mexican Texas. Texans seceded from Mexico in 1836,
helping provoke the war that took the lands from Texas to California in the
1840s. The challenge of balancing slave states and f­ree states in regions taken
from Mexico led to the Civil War that kept the ­union together, ended slavery,
and opened a diverse continent to rapid agro-­industrial expansion—­while
deferring questions of justice for freed blacks, invaded Native Americans, and
expropriated Mexicans. The making of the United States both opened and cul-
minated hemispheric pro­cesses with global ramifications.
Carolyn Fick’s “From Slave Colony to Black Nation: Haiti’s Revolution-
ary Inversion” analyzes the second American society to break with imperial
rule. Haiti did not copy the United States, but in many ways inverted its tra-
12 — John Tutino

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/501804/9780822374305-001.pdf

by FLACSO - FACULTAD LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIENCIAS SOCIALES user
on 02 March 2018
 jectory. French Saint Domingue was the driving engine of the Atlantic sugar
and slave economy ­after 1770. Its expansion led to extreme polarizations; its
population included a huge majority of recently arrived African slaves, when in
1790 promises of popu­lar sovereignty arrived from revolutionary Paris and set
off conflicts among the few p­ eople of Eu­ro­pean, mixed, and African ancestry
who ­were ­free and might claim rights proclaimed as universal and granted to
Frenchmen. Fick details how slaves took arms to control the outcomes of years
of debate and conflict—by 1804 ending slavery, French rule, and most planta-
tion production. She goes on to offer an essential new analy­sis of how early
national rulers committed to sustaining a state and military capable of surviv-
ing in a world of hostile powers faced a populace committed to ­house­hold pro-
duction and staunch in refusing plantation ­labor. The result was a nation of
military rule, ­family self-­sufficiency, and commercial poverty. Haitians rejected
slavery, enabled f­ amily autonomy, and faced deep and enduring difficulties in a
world ­shaped by rising industrial capitalism.
Cuba appears the antithesis of Haiti. David Sartorius’s “Cuban Counter-
point: Colonialism and Continuity in the Atlantic World” shows how Cuba
became new while remaining Spanish. It did not become a nation in our era of
transformation, yet became a new country. It turned to sugar and slavery in
the late eigh­teenth ­century. The Haitian Revolution opened new markets for
Cuban planters and new access to slaves, including some brought from Haiti by
fleeing planters. When Napoleon invaded Spain in 1808, Spanish Cubans re-
mained loyal to the Cádiz liberal regime, gaining new rights and participations
(which Cádiz liberals carefully denied to ­people of African ancestry). When
mainland Spanish Ame­rica turned to in­de­pen­dence in the 1820s, Cuba held
loyal to Spain—­a reenergized slave country in a transatlantic Spanish nation.
Sartorius shows that Cuban loyalty, strategic to planters’ defense of sugar and
slavery in a world of British antislavery, also came with deep engagements in
debates about liberal rights and monarchical legacies. Cubans, at least f­ree
Cubans, joined the ­free ­peoples of the United States in prospering by expanding
slavery between 1800 and 1860. The contrasts with Haiti—­and the similarities
with Brazil—­are striking.
Brazil perhaps experienced the least conflict and the most seamless change
of all the regions that broke with colonial rule before 1825. Yet it too became
a new country, facing the conflicts and uncertainties of creating politics while
facing changing links to the world economy. In “Atlantic Transformations and
Brazil’s Imperial In­de­pen­dence” Kirsten Schultz explores how Portuguese colo-
nies that had proven the global possibilities of sugar and slavery in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries became leading producers of gold and diamonds
Introduction — 13

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/501804/9780822374305-001.pdf

by FLACSO - FACULTAD LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIENCIAS SOCIALES user
on 02 March 2018
 a­ fter 1700 (still relying on slave ­labor). Portuguese rule rested ever more on
Brazilian production linked to British markets—­and through the eigh­teenth
­century, Lisbon aimed to prosper by both limiting and taxing ­those links.
When revolution cut Haitian exports of sugar and coffee and imports of slaves,
sugar and slavery revived in Brazil’s Northeast, while coffee and slavery began
to remake Rio de Janeiro’s hinterland. Rising Brazilian trades sustained Portu-
gal and Britain in times of war ­after 1793. When Napoleon took Lisbon in 1807,
the British navy helped ferry the Portuguese monarchy to Rio, tightening ties
with ­Eng­land. With Napoleon gone in 1814, King João stayed in Rio—­until
Lisbon liberals turned to the Cádiz model seeking new ways to restore their
transatlantic power. They began conflicts that drew João back to Portugal—­
and to Brazil’s separation in 1822 as an empire ­under Prince Pedro, who would
rule as Pedro  I. Regional separatist movements faced military forces funded
by strong export earnings and backed by British navies. Vast Portuguese
colonies—­and claims to a larger Amazon—­held together within a Brazilian
empire. By 1830 Brazil was an expanding continental country sustained by cof-
fee and slavery, which w­ ere tied to rising British industry. Like the U.S. republic
and still-­colonial Cuba, imperial Brazil expanded slavery to prosper in the new
world of industrial capitalism.
The former colonies that expanded slave-­made exports ­after 1800 found
commercial prosperity and relative po­liti­cal stability u­ ntil the 1860s. Then
all faced conflicts over slavery—­none more destructive than the  U.S. Civil
War. In contrast, Haitian slaves claimed liberty and land in revolution; from
1800 they faced continuous challenges of state making and exclusion from the
world economy—­while former slaves and their families lived better for gen-
erations. The new countries made out of Atlantic slave colonies lived enduring
contradictions.
Part II looks at nation making in Mesoamerica and the Andes. Before Eu­
ro­pe­ans came, ­these ­were regions of strong indigenous states sustained by
cultivating communities. A ­ fter 1500 they w­ ere reshaped by disease and demo-
graphic collapse, Spanish rule and silver economies. The Andes led the mining
that drove global trades from 1550 to 1650; New Spain, including Mesoamerica
and regions north, dominated silver production ­after 1700. Across mainland
Spanish Ame­rica, the era of in­de­pen­dence brought the fall of the silver econo-
mies and difficult searches for new ways to prosper in the emerging world of
industrial capitalism, while elites sought new po­liti­cal systems and many com-
munities, indigenous and mixed, pursued local autonomies. Social, po­liti­cal,
and economic challenges and conflicts ­shaped diverse new countries across

14 — John Tutino

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/501804/9780822374305-001.pdf

by FLACSO - FACULTAD LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIENCIAS SOCIALES user
on 02 March 2018
 Spanish Ame­rica—­countries that strug­gled for de­cades to find stable polities
and prosperous places in the new industrial world economy.
In “Becoming Mexico: The Conflictive Search for a North American Na-
tion” Alfredo Ávila and I explore the most radical economic transformation
and one of the most complex and conflictive po­liti­cal transitions in Spain’s
Amer­i­cas. New Spain remained eco­nom­ically dynamic and socially stable to
1810; strong silver production stimulated global trades and funded Eu­ro­pean
wars during the era of U.S. in­de­pen­dence and the French and Haitian Revolu-
tions. Napoleon’s 1808 invasion of Spain broke sovereignty across the empire,
setting off po­liti­cal conflicts in New Spain, leading to popu­lar insurgency t­ here
in 1810. From 1812 to 1814, authorities implemented Cádiz liberalism’s partici-
patory openings aiming to c­ ounter insurgency; they offered local autonomy to
regional elites and indigenous republics, aiming to hold loyalty to Spain in the
fight against France. Scattered po­liti­cal insurgents refused the offer, fighting for
greater autonomy and even in­de­pen­dence ­until 1815. Pop­u­lar insurgents in the
key mining, manufacturing, and cultivating region of the Bajío remained in
arms to 1820; pacification came with a collapse of mining and a turn to f­ amily
production reminiscent of Haiti.
When Spain returned to liberalism the same year, men who had fought in-
surgents and in­de­pen­dence for a de­cade led an alliance of the power­ful calling
Fernando VII to New Spain (unsuccessfully) and then proclaiming a Mexican
monarchy in 1821. They i­magined a continental empire reaching from Costa
Rica to Texas and California. But the collapse of the silver economy left the
­imagined Mexico to search for both a polity (republican from 1824) and a new
economy. The result was a mix of creative and conflictive politics (often rooted
in Cádiz legacies), economic uncertainty, empty trea­suries, po­liti­cal wars, and
social instability—­combining to f­avor in­de­pen­dence in the provinces, the
autonomy indigenous villages, and the prosperity of ­family cultivators. Texas
seceded in 1836 to preserve slavery for waves of Euro-­American immigrants
growing cotton on rich coastal plains, aiming to profit by supplying British
industry. De­cades of conflict culminated in the 1840s when the United States
invaded to take Mexico’s North, including California, where gold drew a west-
ward rush and gave new capital to a newly continental United States. Mexico
was left to search for a polity with shrunken economic potential; the United
States (­after the Civil War) found unpre­ce­dented hemispheric hegemony.
The colonial Kingdom of Guatemala extended from highland Chiapas to
lowland Costa Rica. Far from centers of silver production, the Maya p­ eoples
of Chiapas and Guatemala held onto land and local autonomies in indigenous

Introduction — 15

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/501804/9780822374305-001.pdf

by FLACSO - FACULTAD LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIENCIAS SOCIALES user
on 02 March 2018
 republics; more mixed p­ eoples to the south mostly lived by ranching. The one
impor­tant eighteenth-­century export was indigo, raised in Pacific lowlands
around San Salvador and sent to Atlantic markets by Guatemala City mer-
chants. As Jordana Dym details in “The Republic of Guatemala: Stitching To-
gether a New Country,” the kingdom enjoyed limited prosperity and general
stability to 1808. It engaged Napoleon’s incursion and the Cádiz experiment
with only a few conflicts, po­liti­cal and social. Mexico’s turn to an imperial in­
de­pen­dence in 1821, which aimed to include the Kingdom of Guatemala and
sent an army to press the point, brought the break with Spain—­and then from
Mexico in 1822.
De­cades of po­liti­cal experiment followed. A Central American federation
was pos­si­ble (minus Chiapas, which stayed in Mexico) while many regional
leaders pursued local interests. The indigo economy around San Salvador gave
way to cochineal, a red dye raised by ladino (mixed) growers in eastern Guate-
mala. By the 1840s Guatemala began to consolidate, combining Maya western
highlands, central valleys around the capital where merchants, landlords, and
professionals concentrated, and the ladino eastern uplands that produced the
nation’s only export. El Salvador separated—as did Honduras, Nicaragua, and
Costa Rica (while dreams of federation lived). Guatemala emerged from the
kingdom of the same name, a new and smaller country with a Maya majority
and ­great internal diversity, linked to industrial Britain by one valuable dye.
Only the late nineteenth-­century rise of coffee in Pacific hills and bananas in
Atlantic lowlands built a Guatemalan state with the power to rule assertive
Maya communities.
The Spanish Andes led the first global silver economy, centered at Potosí
from 1550 to 1640, by mobilizing and commercializing indigenous ways of rule,
production, and work. Silver revived in limited ways in the eigh­teenth ­century,
while the Spanish regime took growing exactions in times of war and global
competition. Social conflict escalated from the 1740s, culminating in the ­great
risings led by Túpac Amaru and ­others in the 1780s. They ­were contained, yet
left ­those who ruled wary of indigenous rights and participations for de­cades
to come.
To explore in­de­pen­dence and nation making in the Andes we offer two chap-
ters, one on po­liti­cal pro­cesses, one on indigenous assertions. In “From One
Patria, Two Nations in the Andean Heartland,” Sarah Chambers emphasizes
that new countries ­were neither inevitable nor always grounded in traditional
unities. As capital of the Inca empire, Cuzco had dominated and integrated
the highland regions that are now Peru and Bolivia. When Potosí became the
leading center of global silver production in the sixteenth c­ entury, Cuzco and
16 — John Tutino

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/501804/9780822374305-001.pdf

by FLACSO - FACULTAD LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIENCIAS SOCIALES user
on 02 March 2018
 the nearby highlands became key sources of supplies and ­labor. When Madrid
reformers kept Cuzco tied to Lima while assigning Potosí to a new viceroyalty
at Buenos Aires in 1776, the separation inhibited the response to the 1780s up-
risings that spanned the region. A ­ fter pacification, while the formal split con-
tinued, the Andean heartland remained integrated in many ways.
The Napoleonic incursion and the Cádiz experiment set off local conflicts
in the Andes, but no adamant risings, po­liti­cal or social. The power­ful preferred
stability—­and feared another rising of the native majority. Yet the question
of in­de­pen­dence could not be avoided. Amid the liberal revival in Spain, San
Martín led armies from Buenos Aires and Chile to liberate Lima in 1821;
Bolívar came in 1822 with forces from Caracas and Bogotá to lead ­battles that
finalized in­de­pen­dence in Upper Peru in 1824—­founding Bolivia. Chambers
shows how during that pro­cess and for de­cades ­after, the separation of Peru
and Bolivia was contested. A ­union of the heartland linking Cuzco and Po-
tosí held pos­si­ble. The ultimate division of Peru, ruled by more Spanish Lima,
and Bolivia, with an indigenous majority in search of an economy, came out
of uncertain conflicts. Peru eventually found po­liti­cal stability in an economy
of wool and nitrate exports. Bolivia strug­gled to revive mining and lost the
chance of coastal export development in war with Chile. It remains a nation
with an indigenous majority searching for a role in the world.
Erick Langer’s concluding chapter, “Indigenous In­de­pen­dence in Spanish
South Ame­rica,” focuses on native ­peoples in the Andes and nearby lowlands.
It explores an outcome also noted in Ávila and Tutino’s analy­sis of Mexico and
emphasized in recent studies of Comanche power in North Ame­rica: while
empires fell and new countries strug­gled, native ­peoples often claimed new in­
de­pen­dence in local rule, production, and trade—at times finding more effec-
tive in­de­pen­dence than young nations facing industrial powers. Langer details
how natives across Andean highlands took new control of local production and
trade, and how p­ eople in eastern lowlands found a greater in­de­pen­dence paral-
lel to the Comanche and o­ thers in the North American West. He shows how
they used that autonomy to their benefit for de­cades, ­until export economies
tied to industrial capitalism solidified national regimes a­ fter midcentury. Then,
native ­peoples faced rising threats to po­liti­cal autonomies and the lands essential
to their economic in­de­pen­dence. National consolidations u­ nder export econo-
mies ended indigenous in­de­pen­dence. Still, for generations ­after 1820, native
­peoples across the Amer­i­cas found relief from po­liti­cal powers and economic
impositions. Deep contradictions ­shaped de­cades of transforming divergence.
In an epilogue, Langer and I outline how the rise of export economies ­after
1860 brought the consolidation of po­liti­cally oligarchic and commercially
Introduction — 17

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/501804/9780822374305-001.pdf

by FLACSO - FACULTAD LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIENCIAS SOCIALES user
on 02 March 2018
 liberal republics across Spanish Ame­rica along with the decline of indigenous
in­de­pen­dence ­there (and in the U.S. West)—­while the longer flourishing At-
lantic export economies faced the conflicts (most intense in the United States
and Cuba) that ended slavery. New countries built in conflicts and contradic-
tions from 1750 to 1870 fi­nally consolidated—­retaining polarities within, di-
vergences across the hemi­sphere, and limited roles in the world of industrial
capitalism. Only the United States claimed power in that world—­and it con-
centrated in the Northeast. Many in the South, Midwest, and West saw them-
selves as struggling in export economies ruled by an industrial-­financial core in
a nation that was also a continental empire. The United States thus replicated
within its expanding bound­aries the larger relationships (including indigenous
subordination and Spanish American dependence) that tied all of the Amer­i­
cas to the North Atlantic core of industrial capitalism ­after 1870.
Our histories link global pro­cesses, regional challenges, and local conflicts
to understand the hemispheric divergences that created new countries. Across
Atlantic Ame­rica, we emphasize the close link between the expansion of export
economies grounded in slavery and early po­liti­cal stability—­often seen as “suc-
cess” in the world of early nations. Brazil and the United States held together
to expand as continental nations; Cuba remained in the Spanish empire. All
expanded slavery to prosper as exporters tied to a rising industrial capitalism;
all ­later faced difficult conflicts to end slavery—­and deal with racial inequities.
The contrast with Haiti is striking: ­there, armed slaves ended slavery and most
export production; they lived better for generations while their insistence on
farming for sustenance led to commercial “failure” and national poverty.
Across highland Spanish Ame­rica, the collapse of once dynamic silver econ-
omies during the wars set off by Napoleon’s occupation of Spain and the op-
portunities of Cádiz liberalism led to republics that began in the 1820s. They
faced openings to new polities while struggling to find new economies. Po­liti­
cal conflicts persisted while the dimensions of new nations ­were contested and
native ­peoples claimed new in­de­pen­dence. Spanish Central Ame­rica and the
Andes broke into nations searching for coherence and new roles in an indus-
trializing world. They consolidated ­after 1860, as they found export economies
sending staples to ­Eng­land, Eu­rope, and the United States.
Mexico held together (­after losing Central Ame­rica), experimented with
industry in the 1830s, and then lost its North in war to an expanding United
States—­a conflict that also sealed the fate of the Comanche empire. Both North
American nations faced civil wars in 1860s. It was only a­ fter Union victory held
the nation together and ended slavery that the United States ­rose to continen-
tal and l­ater global industrial hegemony. In Mexico, liberals triumphed in the
18 — John Tutino

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/501804/9780822374305-001.pdf

by FLACSO - FACULTAD LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIENCIAS SOCIALES user
on 02 March 2018
 War of Reform and outlasted French occupation in the 1860s to rule a strug-
gling nation increasingly tied to U.S. expansion in a new industrial world.
The new countries of the Amer­i­cas faced many challenges in the internal, na-
tional, and global divergences that came with their conflictive origins. Amid the
rise of popu­lar sovereignty, po­liti­cally, socially, and culturally complex nations
(and enduring colonies) became part in a new industrial world. Long marginal
mainland colonies of British North Ame­rica become a hegemonic continental
nation. The once pivotal silver economies of Spanish Ame­rica and sugar and
slave colonies of Atlantic Ame­rica became uncertain and often contested na-
tions searching for new f­ utures. ­There are many histories in this history of new
countries.

Notes
1 The importance of sugar and slavery is the subject of a huge lit­er­a­ture, best syn-
thesized in Robin Blackburn, The Making of New World Slavery (London: Verso,
1997). The earlier and larger role of the silver economies of Spanish Ame­rica is em-
phasized in Henry Kamen, Empire: How Spain Became a World Power, 1492–1763
(New York: HarperCollins, 2003), and John Tutino, Making a New World:
Founding Capitalism in the Bajío and Spanish North Ame­rica (Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 2011).
2 Spain’s war for in­de­pen­dence against Napoleon and the importance of Cádiz liberal-
ism have received their due in studies beginning with François Xavier-­Guerra, Mod­
ernidades e independencies: Ensayos sobre las revoluciones hispánicas (Mexico City:
Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1993), and culminating in José Gregorio Cayuela
Fernández and José Ángel Gallego Palomares, La guerra de independencia: Historia
bélica—­pueblo y nación en España, 1808–1814 (Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad
de Salamanca, 2008), and Roberto Breña, El primer liberalismo español y los procesos
de emancipación de América, 1808–1824 (Mexico City: El Colegio de México,
2006).
3 The new history of the Haitian Revolution began with Carolyn Fick, The Making of
Haiti: The Saint Domingue Revolution from Below (Knoxville: University of Tennes-
see Press, 1990), and culminated with Laurent Dubois, Avengers of the New World:
The Story of the Haitian Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2005).
4 This wave was ably synthesized in C. H. Bayly, The Birth of the Modern World,
1780–1914 (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004).
5 John Lynch, The Spanish American Revolutions, 1808–1826, 2nd ed. (New York:
Norton, 1986).
6 Robin Blackburn, The Overthrow of Colonial Slavery: 1776–1848 (London: Verso,
1990).
7 Lester Langley, The Amer­i­cas in the Age of Revolution, 1750–1850 (New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1996).

Introduction — 19

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/501804/9780822374305-001.pdf

by FLACSO - FACULTAD LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIENCIAS SOCIALES user
on 02 March 2018
 8 J. H. Elliott, Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in Ame­rica, 1492–
1830 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007).
9 Jeremy Adelman, Sovereignty and Revolution in the Iberian Atlantic (Prince­ton, NJ:
Prince­ton University Press, 2006).
10 Kenneth Pomeranz, The ­Great Divergence: China, Eu­rope, and the Making of the
Modern World Economy (Prince­ton, NJ: Prince­ton University Press, 2000).
11 Ronald Findlay and Kevin O’Rourke, Power and Plenty: Trade, War, and the World
Economy in the Second Millennium (Prince­ton, NJ: Prince­ton University Press,
2007).
12 Sven Beckert, Empire of Cotton: A Global History (New York: Knopf, 2014).
13 See Tutino, Making a New World, in the context of Man Huang Lin, China Upside
Down: Currency, Society, and Ideologies, 1808–1856 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 2007).
14 On war capitalism and industrial capitalism, see Beckert, Empire of Cotton.
15 Fick, The Making of Haiti.
16 Dubois, Avengers of the New World.
17 On the Bajío and New Spain’s silver in the world economy, see Tutino, Making a
New World; on collapse ­after 1810, Tutino, “The Revolution in Mexican In­de­pen­
dence: Insurgency and the Renegotiation of Property, Production, and Patriarchy
in the Bajío, 1800–1855,” Hispanic American Historical Review 78:3 (1998), 367–418.
18 Luis Fernando Granados, En el espejo haitiano: Los indios del Bajío y el colapso del
orden colonial en América Latina (Mexico City: Ediciones Era, 2016).
19 On the politics of U.S. in­de­pen­dence, Gordon Wood, The Creation of the Ameri­
can Republic, 1776–1787 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969),
remains the classic; on the transatlantic rise of popu­lar sovereignty, see Edmund
Morgan, Inventing the ­People: The Rise of Pop­u­lar Sovereignty in ­Eng­land and
Ame­rica (New York: Norton, 1989); and on the inseparability of slavery and nation
making, see Edmund Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of
Colonial V ­ irginia (New York: Norton, 1975). On the French Revolution, see François
Furet, Revolutionary France, 1770–1810 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992); on Haitian inter-
actions with revolutionary France, see Dubois, Avengers of the New World.
20 Guerra, Modernidades e independencies, built on the pioneering work of Nettie Lee
Benson, The Provincial Deputation in Mexico: Harbinger of Provincial Autonomy,
In­de­pen­dence, and Federalism (published in Spanish, 1955; reprint, Austin: Univer-
sity of Texas Press, 1992).
21 Breña, El primer liberalismo español; on the complex mix of war and insurgency
against Napoleón in Spain, see Cayuela Fernández and Gallego Palomares, La
guerra de independencia: Historia bélica.
22 Pekka Hämäläinen, The Comanche Empire (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
2008), and John Tutino, “Globalizing the Comanche Empire,” History and Theory
52:1 (February 2013), 67–74.
23 To add another divergence to integrated global pro­cesses, if Eu­rope and the Amer­
i­cas forged nations at the foundations of industrial capitalism in order to spread
that capitalism, the Eu­ro­pean powers l­ ater forged a second generation of empires

20 — John Tutino

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/501804/9780822374305-001.pdf

by FLACSO - FACULTAD LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIENCIAS SOCIALES user
on 02 March 2018
 spanning the ­Middle East, Africa, and South Asia. See Bayly, Birth of the Modern
World.
24 Again, see Morgan, Inventing the ­People, and Dubois, Avengers of the New World.
25 The last work of the ­great historian of Rus­sia Richard Stites details the impact of
Cádiz liberalism from Spain to Naples, Greece, and Rus­sia. See The Four Horse­
men: Riding to Liberty in Post-­Napoleonic Eu­rope (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2013).

Introduction — 21

Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/chapter-pdf/501804/9780822374305-001.pdf

by FLACSO - FACULTAD LATINOAMERICANA DE CIENCIENCIAS SOCIALES user
on 02 March 2018