IBDP History: Independence movements (1763–1830)-HL option 2 -Paper 3

Question

Evaluate the role of foreign intervention on two independence movements in the Americas.

▶️Answer/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates are required to focus their responses on two independence movements in the region and evaluate the role played by foreign powers during that time. They should determine the ways in which foreign powers helped or hindered the independence movements and assess the significance of such actions.

Indicative content
• Although they cannot be categorized as direct foreign intervention, the philosophical and intellectual contributions of the European Enlightenment and the French Revolution could be considered a type of foreign influence.
• In both British and Spanish America, there was increasing dissatisfaction with the lack of representation of the colonies in European parliaments and resentment against the demanding taxation systems imposed by European powers.
• For British America, the impact of the French and Indian Wars on the relations between the United Kingdom and the colonies, and the ways in which British and French intervention in the French and Indian Wars affected the later independence movement could be considered.
• Candidates may also address foreign aid—both financial and in terms of munitions—from France, Spain and the Netherlands to the American colonies.
• France in particular was significant as it provided military assistance in the form of troops and training. Further, the French Navy was key to the success of the American independence movement.
• Responses that refer to Haiti could discuss both British and Spanish interventions.
• Responses that refer to Latin America could mention the friction that was a consequence of the Bourbon Reforms and/or they could discuss the monopolistic trade system. There could also be reference to the influence that the independence of the US may have had.
• Further, there could be a discussion of the political implications of the abdications of Charles IV and Ferdinand VII and Napoleon’s invasion of Spain, as well as lack of support for the Spanish Central Junta. British intervention in the region, for example its incursions into the Rio de la Plata in 1806 and 1807, may also be considered.
• For Portuguese America, examples of foreign influence may include the establishment of the royal family in Brazil during the Napoleonic invasion, subsequent policies that sought to open up trade with countries other than Portugal (for example the United Kingdom) and the impact of the decisions of the Cortes (including the restoration of Brazil to the status of colony). Dom Pedro’s defiance of Portugal, his call for a Constituent Assembly and the declaration of Independence in 1822 may also be significant.

The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, it is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.

Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.

Question

Compare and contrast the independence movements in two countries in Latin America.

▶️Answer/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates are required to demonstrate a clear understanding of the similarities and differences of independence movements in two countries of Latin America. Focus areas may include the causes, leadership, goals, social classes involved, course of the movement, impact of foreign involvement, and outcomes. How these are deployed will depend upon the countries chosen.

Indicative content
• Causes could be the impact of the American and French Revolution, impact of the Bourbon Reforms and Enlightenment, removal of Ferdinand VII, and the dissatisfaction experienced by Creoles.
• Leadership could include the role played by Creoles, mestizos and native peoples; the ideological and military contributions of individual leaders such as Bolivar for much of northern South America, San Martin for southern South America, L’Overture and Dessalines for Haiti, Hidalgo, Morelos, and then Iturbide in Mexico and Dom Pedro in Brazil.
• Goals would certainly be independence, but after that there were many dissimilar goals regarding the type of government, the abolition of slavery and/or the power of the Catholic Church.
• A discussion of social class could identify the importance of elites in some countries and, in others, the significance of the lower classes.
• References to the course of the movement may discuss the time it took to achieve independence and/or the methods used to achieve it.
• In some cases, foreign involvement can be deemed to have been significant. Particular countries that may be referred to include the United Kingdom, France and/or Spain and the extent to which they hindered or helped independence.
• Outcomes relate back to goals and could deal with independence itself, the types of governments established and any reforms that may have been instituted.

The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, it is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.

Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.

Question

With reference to two countries, examine the characteristics of early 19th century independence movements in Latin America.

▶️Answer/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates are required to select two relevant movements and consider some of their key features. Some candidates may adopt a comparative approach; however this is not essential. Given the timeframe expressed in the question, Cuban independence is not a relevant example.

Indicative content

• They were inspired by liberalism, nationalism and the belief in popular sovereignty as well as by events in Europe and North America, for example, the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars and US independence.
• As initial steps in the road to independence, important colonial cities formed cabildos/juntas either to govern in the absence of the Spanish king or to rule autonomously.
• Some movements, such as those in Caracas or Buenos Aires, could be described initially as revolutions from above; others started as uprisings from below (for example, Hidalgo and Morelos in Mexico).
• Although the movements did not bring about revolutionary social change, some social mobility became possible as both creoles and mestizos led the independence movements and joined the patriotic armies.
• With the exception of Brazil, they developed into armed conflict and, eventually, wars of independence that contributed to the political fragmentation of the region.
• In some cases, foreign aid became available to the independence movements (for example, British aid to Bolivar).

The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, it is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.

Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so.

Question

“US policy toward Latin American independence movements was dominated by self-interest rather than idealism.” Discuss.

▶️Answer/Explanation

Ans:

Candidates must offer a considered and balanced review of the suggestion that self-interest and not idealism was the dominant motive in shaping US policy. While the embodiment of the US position is generally considered to be the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, factors other than the doctrine may have relevance.

Indicative content
Influence of idealism:
• Many Latin American republics had modelled their statements of independence and their constitutions on the respective US documents. Thus, the US regarded the emerging republics as representative of US ideals.
• Following the fall of Napoleon and the restoration of several European monarchies, the US feared that anti-liberal and anti-democratic movements might seek to restore control over the emerging Latin American republics (this was considered a potential threat to the future of US democratic institutions as well as liberal institutions within the hemisphere).
• Several Latin American republics issued statements in response to the Monroe Doctrine as they believed that the US had issued this for idealistic reasons and not because it wanted to dominate Latin America.

Influence of self-interest:
• British Foreign Secretary George Canning’s proposal of a joint US-British warning to the European powers against intervention in Latin America was seen by the US as subservient to British interests and potentially restrictive to future expansion in the hemisphere.
• The US issuance of the Monroe Doctrine (1823) warned Europe against attempts to interfere in their internal affairs and asserted that the Americas were closed to further European colonisation (although it did offer clear support for the independence of the Latin American republics). US motives, while not stated in the doctrine, were interpreted as either self-interested or altruistic.
• US secretary of State John Q Adams (the author of the Monroe Doctrine), along with the Monroe administration, was acutely aware that the doctrine would be enforced by the British navy. This would be in support of British economic interests, since the US lacked the naval power to enforce the doctrine.
• Following the end of Spanish colonialism in Latin America, US trade had greatly expanded. The US feared that European intervention would restrict US access to the expansion of this trade and the resultant profits.

The above material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. However, it is not exhaustive and no set answer is required.

Examiners and moderators are reminded of the need to apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and to award credit wherever it is possible to do so

Scroll to Top