Central American Independence

Driven in large measure by bicentennial reflections and commemorations, as well as an explosion of interest in the Atlantic world and transatlantic revolutions, scholarship on Latin American independence has flourished in recent decades. Perhaps the most underdeveloped area of research within this field, however, concerns the former kingdom of Guatemala in Central America, a region whose unenthusiastic transition from isthmian colony to five barely viable nation-states failed to conform to the larger revolutionary narrative that developed around the collapse of the Spanish empire. In the 19th century, Latin American historians contributed to the nation-building process by constructing accounts of independence that celebrated heroic liberators and their patriotic supporters. By comparison, Central Americans looked back on the 1810s and witnessed an anemic separation from Spain, followed by a decade of confusion and hesitation that lacked any sense of national unity. Isthmian scholars applied the narrative framework established by their Latin American counterparts with limited success. By 1900, a liberal-informed consensus had solidified around a sclerotic stagnant paradigm that blamed the colony’s equivocation on extreme Spanish repression. While this narrative satisfied many Central Americans, it attracted little interest from foreign scholars. It was not until the 1960s, in fact, that the first substantive academic reevaluation and critique of the 19th-century independence historiography began. Since then, historians of Central America’s transition from colony to nation have been both prolific and creative, constructing a modern bibliography inspired by broader historiographical trends informing current research into Spanish-American independence. This new scholarship demonstrates interest in an expanded revolutionary chronology, which establishes connections and continuities between Atlantic world societies from 1750 to 1850. It has expanded beyond its traditional focus on political elites to include the roles of more marginalized social groups. It has also largely left behind the liberal depiction of independence as a Manichean battle between royalists and patriots, a shift that has encouraged consideration of the wide spectrum of political sentiment on the isthmus. While traditional studies focused on Guatemala and its capital city, a new generation of historians has explored both local and provincial responses to the imperial crisis, providing much-needed regional balance. Such work has enabled many to view the process of independence as integral to the difficult nation-building experience that followed, rather than simply the end of the colonial period. In general, the scholarship has confirmed that Central America deserves a place in any discussion of the Age of Revolutions.