Our Sister Republics: The United States in an Age of American Revolutions

by Caitlin Fitz

Winner of the James H. Broussard First Book PrizePROSE Award in U.S. History (Honorable Mention)

A major new interpretation recasts U.S. history between revolution and civil war, exposing a dramatic reversal in sympathy toward Latin American revolutions.

In the early nineteenth century, the United States turned its idealistic gaze southward, imagining a legacy of revolution and republicanism it hoped would dominate the American hemisphere. From pulsing port cities to Midwestern farms and southern plantations, an adolescent nation hailed Latin America’s independence movements as glorious tropical reprises of 1776. Even as Latin Americans were gradually ending slavery, U.S. observers remained energized by the belief that their founding ideals were triumphing over European tyranny among their “sister republics.” But as slavery became a violently divisive issue at home, goodwill toward antislavery revolutionaries waned. By the nation’s fiftieth anniversary, republican efforts abroad had become a scaffold upon which many in the United States erected an ideology of white U.S. exceptionalism that would haunt the geopolitical landscape for generations. Marshaling groundbreaking research in four languages, Caitlin Fitz defines this hugely significant, previously unacknowledged turning point in U.S. history.

Genres: History, American History, Nonfiction, World History, American Revolution, Latin American History

358 pages, Kindle Edition

First published July 5, 2016

Reviews

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was one of the most surprising I've read this year. Caitlin Fitz takes an era of American history (c. 1815-1825) that has a well-established narrative - The Era of Good Feelings - and totally upended that story, persuasively establishing the United States' place in foreign affairs, particularly those of the Western Hemisphere. Relying heavily on newspaper accounts of 4th of July toasts as a proxy for general attitudes about the nation's purpose and ideals, Fitz clearly outlines popular attitudes in favor of revolutions throughout Spanish America. What's most meaningful to me about this research is what it says about how people viewed their country - during this decade, citizens from Tennessee to Maine proclaimed the United States not just as a republic, but as the definitive republic, a model that the rest of the hemisphere seemed to be rapidly following. This pride of place as the prototypical republic overshadowed any concern they might have had about the racial or religious character of these "sister republics", indicating the strength of conviction in America's republican example. By the mid-1820s, however, racial and expansionist ideas weighed more heavily than founding-era rhetoric about political equality, buttressed by the difficulties faced by these new republics in day-to-day operations and the organization of Jacksonian opposition to the John Quincy Adams administration and the reformist impulse of abolitionists and others. Fitz writes persuasively, crisply and powerfully, weaving brief character descriptions into excellent analysis. While the topic is very narrow, I'd highly recommend this book as an interesting work of American intellectual history and as a model for anyone interested in good historical writing.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an impulse borrow from the "new releases" rack at the library. Fitz writes about a phenomenon of the Early Republic that we don't discuss much - Americans were really excited about the way revolution seemed to be spreading in the Western Hemisphere. Until the 1820s or so, Americans were so excited about revolution and republican ideals that they were toasting hemispheric independence and naming their kids "Bolivar" and they didn't really care that these new South American republics were abolishing slavery, or that they were all Catholics. Even the southerners in the United States were still kind of in this mindset that republican revolution was good and if they were emancipating slaves, well, that's the sort of thing republics do, and we'll get around to it eventually. Then in the 1820s, the south starts to really double down on slavery and they start to distance themselves from these new Latin American republics.
The research here is interesting, though I did wonder sometimes exactly how much we can infer just from baby names and newspaper reports about toasts. Do we even know for sure that people made these toasts at dinners? Couldn't partisan newspapers report basically whatever they wanted to about these banquets? Who would call them on it? On another note, I thought it was interesting that Fitz points out that the Americans loved to toast South American independence while not mentioning Mexico much. Revolution in Venezuela was a little less threatening I guess.

[Luke V · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really well done history, and written in a very accessible manner. I had no idea about the USA's interest in the Latin American independence revolutions of the early 1800s, and the author does a terrific job marshaling her argument. I think it's a great case study of how to work with limited archival evidence - her use of 4th of July toasts and baby names are examples -- to show something new about our country's history. Who knew that US people cared so much about others trying to stage similar democratic revolutions, and that those revolutionaries traveled to and sought support from the U.S.? And then it's also fascinating, and sad, to see how politicians (particularly in the South) latched onto these revolutions to begin to build a case for American exceptionalism in regards to race -- that these South American revolutions did not match our own, because of their anti-slavery nature.

[Dean · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was not familiar with this part of American history and diplomacy. Shows the change from America and Americans being sympatico with South American revolutionaries to being afraid of South American emancipations. That black, browns, and catholics were inferior to Americans. The Declaration of Independence was not a universal document that applied to all peoples of all nations. It even didn't apply to all Americans.

A little too anecdotal for my tastes. How many babies name Bolivar and how many toasts to South American independence on fourth of July parties. Would have preferred more narrative.

[Parker · Rating 3 out of 5]

Definitely some great anecdotes in here to animate a story about early US history that isn't widely known. The idea of using baby names and Fourth of July toasts gave an air of data-based history in a way that was largely successful and interesting. Still, for whatever reason I found it difficult to hold my focus on this book, or even to extract much of a thread from the chapters.

[Lynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fascinating, well-written and very well researched book that explores how people in the US responded to independence movements in South America in the 1810-1830 period. At first they saw them as "sister republics" following the example of 1776. But opposition grew in the South as South American republics outlawed slavery. This led to a sharper focusing of pro-slavery rhetoric (eventually rebutting Jefferson's "All men are created equal") that provided the intellectuial framework for secession. l

[Chris Cook · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author presents a history about how the United States perceived other republics in the Western Hemisphere that tried to get off the ground. She shows that for awhile, the public really supported the other republics, but the government was not always so supportive to them. It's an interesting read.

[Jason S · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting argument that change in support for the Latin American revolutions was a marker of increasing sectional tensions in the 1820s. Some interesting sources. Final chapter is the best and some in the middle drag a bit.

[Jim Blessing · Rating 1 out of 5]

I've always wanted to read a book that explains how the South American countries won their independence. Unfortunately, this wasn't it and was a very boring book.

[Nick Mariner · Rating 5 out of 5]

First-rate scholarship by Dr. Fitz. I am teaching IB History of the Americas in the Fall and this just got put on the summer reading list.

[QOH · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rounding up from a 3.5.

The topic is fascinating--how Americans viewed and treated revolutionaries from Latin America (the further south, the better, as it turned out). The author, a Yale-educated historian, certainly knows the topic well. Looking at Fourth of July toasts and the naming of babies "Bolivar" in the 1820s is an interesting, if not very scientific, barometer of public opinion. Given the political climate today and the nonsensical political rhetoric about wall-building, it's important to look at how the first generations of Americans thought out our southern neighbors as they broke free from their European masters, and how racism and slavery fit into the picture.

However, the prose is florid. Try this: "The trickle of weapons that dripped southward from the United States before 1815 turned into something more of a stream following the peace with Britain, just as public excitement began to rest as well." (p. 163) The next page continues the water motif: "The United States formed only one spoke in the water-churning wheel of Atlantic trade, of course and it was not the only country that sent supplies south. Britain, too, was drowning in weapons after the Napoleonic Wars..." (p. 164) I turned to my husband and said I'd toss myself in the ocean if we kept up with the water metaphors.

It's pretty writing and it's easy to read, but it's a waste of words in an academic book that could have used more specificity. We are repeatedly told about how phlegmatic Adams (I) and (II) were, how wild Henry Clay could be, and how James Monroe and John Randolph looked. Really--who reading early American history doesn't know these things? Or the basics of the Monroe Doctrine? George Canning (the British foreign secretary) appears in a minor moment (whether the US would join with Britain against the "unholy alliance"--we don't--but words are used to describe him as "balding and brilliant." One Virginia Fourth of July bash was described in incredible detail (there was a blustery storm) simply for the point of demonstrating there were pro-Latin American independence toasts made during it.

Seriously? You could turn superfluous adjective/adverb spotting into a drinking game without much work. I give you thirty pages (max) before you are completely drunk.

Pretty writing is pretty, though, and other than being repetitive, wouldn't be much of a problem...except it was at the price of more facts. (I know, I like facts!) This isn't my field, but off the top of my head I can come up with a few examples. Naval Commissioner (and Captain) David Porter (of USS Essex fame) is mentioned twice--but neither for the event that got him booted out of the US Navy (a bout of imperialism south of the border) nor the fact he went on to work for Mexico while he was suspended from US Naval service--and it was very newsworthy at the time, especially since he was duking it out with his subordinates in the newspapers leading up to his court martial. Joel Poinsett, an intriguer (responsible for bringing Poinsettias to the US) is mentioned once in passing. The German naturalist Alexander von Humboldt had explored South America and his writings made him a huge celebrity in North America as well as Europe. Americans didn't know about South America solely from newspapers. I'd rather have had the toasts and baby names skipped one of the fifteen or so extra times they're mentioned (in case we forgot from one chapter from another?) in order to have a more nuanced picture--what of ship manifests, ship's logs, journals of midshipmen (since they were usually required to keep them)? Particularly as selling weapons to rebels was very lucrative for Americans post 1815.

The author (or rather the publishing house) engages in the persistently annoying trend of one-endnote-per paragraph. This makes for long endnotes that do not directly link up a claim with a source, and I was often frustrated that even a wordy endnote failed to address basic questions I might have about source material. (Disclaimer: I am a lawyer and if I write something that isn't my own argument, it's a source and it gets cited. EVERY TIME.) I find this type of endnote intellectually dishonest, because it's all too easy to slip some shiners in among better sources--or to omit a source entirely if one doesn't exist. There's no excuse for not using footnotes with modern layout software, and it's a lot more frustrating to flip a couple of hundred pages forward in a book to find a note rather than glance down at the bottom of the page.

For all that, I'd recommend reading it to those interested in Latin American studies and in Early American history. But I sincerely hope Professor Fitz will do a find-and-replace for the more egregious adverbs and adjectives in her next book. (And I am looking forward to a next book, whenever it will be.)

[Aloysius · Rating 4 out of 5]

A look at the reactions by the United States to the independence movements that were affecting South and Central America during the early 19th century. Surprised to see that there was such widespread support for these movements for so long.