End of Spain’s Imperial Authority

At the end of the eighteenth century, Spanish Americans still saw in their ‘mother country’ some kind of image of themselves, however within a matter of years, the colonies became characterized by violent movements, intent on liberation from imperial rule. The causes and origins have been widely debated, however, the key to the debate is whether the movements were reactionary and arose in response to the events in the Iberian Peninsula, or whether they were rather ideological revolutions of national liberation. This essay will first discuss the ideas of a national liberation, then the alterations to structure of Spanish authority, moving to focus on the economic origins of the movements and lastly focusing upon the effect of the Napoleonic War. I will essentially conclude that Bourbon monarchy’s implementation of radical policies damaged the legitimacy of imperial rule, undermining the dynamics of the colonial relationship developed under the Hapsburgs, and created yet another crisis with the ‘moral economy’. However the importance of Napoleon’s rule over Spain must not be underestimated.

However, it is misguided to discredit the argument that revolutions were, at least partly, of nationalist sentiments. For example, Michael T. Ducey stresses this idea and extends it as he asserts that it was not just driven by elites - ‘elite concerns filtered into the camps of indigenous insurgents, who then gave new meanings to issues of constitutionalism ’, which gave rise to notions of nationalism and independence. He specifically uses the example of villagers in northern Veracruz, who began to describe themselves as citizens rather than subjects, with a rhetoric stressing national service rather than royal service . Equally Lynch describes incipient nationalism as ‘potent’, as Americans began to see themselves as significantly different from the Spanish . But, many theorists of national identities assume that nationalism in this period was very thin and involved a fraction of the population – a sentiment that I tend to concur with. Just because Spanish Americans saw themselves as different, it does not mean their rebellions were fuelled by a national consciousness.

Peter Bakewell equally focuses upon nationalist sentiments, however his argument takes a form of a more recent school of thought; seeing these movements as part of the period of Atlantic Revolutions, largely fuelled by Enlightenment ideals , a sentiment, which Jeremy Adelman concurs with . For example Bakewell argues that there was a ‘rising creole consciousness of the different colonies’ geographical, economic and human realities ’ which led to the embracing of the Enlightenment ideas of challenging traditional orders, which eventually led to aspirations of Independence. Although, there is credit to the argument that some creole elites were schooled in enlightened ideals, it is certainly misguided to say that these ideals were shared with the lower classes, as enlightenment secularism was limited to small circles in economic societies. Unlike Ducey, Bakewell certainly makes this mistake, as he focuses too heavily upon the creole elite, which alone cannot account for the rise of rebellions, as it was the non-elites who fought in the movements. Essentially, nationalist sentiments were created by, or rather the national consciousness was awoken by, reactions to the events in the Peninsula, and thus did not cause the independence movements in Spanish America.

However, the end of the Hapsburg monarchy signaled the beginning of the events that would lead to the independence movements in Spanish America. The French Bourbons ‘were to recast the aims and methods of Spanish Imperial government ’, but in doing so caused a breakdown in the power structures both within Spain and in the relationship with her colonies. This was firstly achieved through the Bourbons implementing a more executive and centralized style government , as opposed to that of the previous consultative style of government, seen in their use of advisory councils . Moreover, the landed aristocracy was excluded from administration , leading to elite disillusionment. This was also replicated in the Indies, for example Spanish administrators replaced the current corregidores and alcaldes mayores , and created new viceroys. These were seen as attacks by locals, which also lead to disillusionment and mistrust , which engendered the preconditions for independence movements.

However, the key to the disruption of both power structures was the change in sovereignty. As John Lynch argues, Spanish administration previously possessed political power through little military enforcement but rather it derived its power from the unchallenged sovereignty of the Crown, reinforced by a unique relationship with the Church. This is also central to Williamson’s argument. He asserts that the Bourbon reforms replaced a peculiarly Spanish symbiosis of Crown and Church. However, the French Bourbons implemented a more stringent French absolutism - the monarchy now claimed the power of their sovereignty laid in ‘divine right ‘, which left little room for the church to legitimize power and thus their own power was reduced. Ultimately this disbanded a binding colonial force, which deeply divided society both at home and abroad. However the Bourbon’s went further; they were keen to limit the power of the Church as they saw its wealth as ‘unproductive’ thus tried to transfer property away from their hands. This weakened the political foundations of the Catholic Monarchy and ultimately the political status quo was upset, thus too was the authority of the Crown in the Indies. The climate created was one of division – a clear precursor to independence.

The breakdown in these imperial dynamics was also largely unpinned by economic factors. The implications of Bourbon economic reforms incited resentment. Largely, the economic control over Spanish America was exerted in order to directly benefit the metropolis , for example economic gain was directly diverted to Spain, with royal monopolies imposed on commodities and also the increase of the ‘alcabala’ (sales tax) . This essentially deprived local economies of vital monetary supply , but also impacted upon creole elites in the form of the ‘royal fifth’ and pressure for donations to the Crown , which thus joined rich and poor, Spaniard and creole and even mestizos and Indians together in their alienation from the ‘mother country.’ However, rather than directly causing the demand for independence, Lynch has pointed to the fact that this rather ‘engendered a climate of resentment . In addition, War with Britain (1779-83) only acted as a catalyst for the situation - as war continued so rose the economic demand on the colonies, (colonial revenue traditionally represented twenty percent of the Spanish treasury income but dwindled to zero percent in times of war .) Thus it is unsurprising that riots and rebellions did arise in conjunction with tax grievances, a sentiment, which many historians concur with; both Lynch and Penguin accredit the riots in New Granada (1781) and Southern Peru (1780) as a result of tax increases. Indeed in New Granada in 1781 creoles and mestizos ‘surprised the authorities by the violence of their protests ’ in reaction to taxation. However, it is vital to see this not as the sole driver of rebellions, but rather it highlighted the issues that Spanish Americans weren’t consulted about the foreign policy of Spain, or their own economic policies, and thus they turned to ideas of self governance – rather than the search for new government systems as the manifestation of ideas of nationalist liberation.

Moreover in recent years, there had been a distinct focus upon ‘history from below’ and this tends to neglect the elites in society, as they are deemed unrepresentative. However, in this case, ideas of independence originated in this particular social stratum. Largely, these concerns originated from economic grievances, particularly relating to trade. Edwin Williamson has argued to this end; he states that this issue with trade was one of relative change. At the end of the seventeenth century Spanish Americans engaged in extensive trade with the Far East through widespread contraband , but a relatively lax Hapsburg monarchy did little to prevent this. However, Bourbon reforms reverted to stricter terms of trade, which encroached on elite economic freedom. Lynch adds to this argument considerably, fore-fronting the role that the economic grievances in promoting ideas of independence. For example, he asserts that colonies are historically supposed to benefit the metropolis in terms of trade, but the Spain’s economy had become disjointed; the trade of both Spain and America competed with each other, as both were largely agrarian societies, rather than complementing each other. Trade between the two was therefore characterized by’ rivalry and not integration’ . Moreover, towards the end of the eighteenth century, war had destroyed Spanish trading monopoly, and the government was forced into trading concessions. Spanish colonies reveled in this, their trade with foreign countries flourished - for example exports rose from 1,389,219 dollars in 1795 to 8,437,659 in 1801 . The colonies had therefore had a taste of independence, realizing the obvious advantages of trade with foreign countries, which they had been previously denied. They came to recognize that all their trading problems stemmed from colonial control, thus self-government made unrestricted trade a possibility.

These Spanish American economic grievances and consequently the actions of its people can also be paralleled strongly with E.P Thompson’s theory of ‘moral economy. ’, or it at least goes some way in explaining why lower classes were mobilized. Although this theory has largely been applied to discuss earlier colonial riots, this view can certainly be extended to the independence movements. Spanish Americans had become accustomed to the relative security of the Hapsburg monarchy and their colonial relationship; therefore Bourbon disruptions aroused rebellion and protest when the terms of local subsistence ethic were breached. The reason perhaps that these tensions transformed into independence movements this time, has much to do with the severity of change to all aspects of the socio-economic system.

Despite the importance of economics, the effect of the Peninsula War cannot be ignored. When Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Spain in 1808 and indefinitely detained the Spanish monarchy , the effect was that of a national disaster. Timothy Anna asserts that the Bourbon government became ‘divided against itself ’(in reference to the appearance of multiple juntas, both in Spain and her colonies.) These councils assumed provisional sovereignty, which raised the question – who was now the legitimate sovereign? This divided ‘creole from creole and creole from Spaniard ’, but what is key is that the question of legitimate sovereignty was also raised in Spanish America, which fuelled the fires of independence. In Peru for example, a new viceroy followed the direction Cadiz , as did regions such as Cordoba, La Paz and Montevideo but in Chile revolutionary junta took power . It is as Williamson asserts; political disagreements would soon lead to a series of bloody civil wars ’. Although it could be argued that a break down of the absolute monarchy didn’t preordain Spanish American Independence, as restructuring could have taken many forms, war acted as a catalyst to the already complex and tense colonial relationship. The country became further fractured which precipitated a crisis of political legitimacy, thus making the colonies question authority. Indeed, as D.A.G. Waddell cites, ‘as a Mexican patriot said, “Napoleon Bonaparte… to you Spanish America owes the liberty and independence it now enjoys .” Although a large exaggeration, this highlights that the French invasion impacted upon Spain’s ability to govern, thus the divided nature of the country made resistance to independence implausible.

Ultimately, there was not a compelling enough force originating from the Spanish American colonies that could have led to the breakdown of Spain’s imperial authority, despite the argument that the independence movements were revolutions of national liberation. Rather it was a series of external events, predominately as a result of the French Bourbon reforms, which precipitated a crisis of royal legitimacy both in the Iberian Peninsula and the colonies. This in turn created severe economic destabilization, which left colonial ‘subjects’ as severely disaffected, regardless of their class. In addition to this, the Peninsula War catalyzed the situation, further dismantling the credibility of the monarchy, and thwarted any hope of a recreation of a prior state of stability. Combined, this accounts for the why the crisis in the moral economy translated to independence movements, rather than merely colonial riots. Spain was thus unequipped to deal with the grievances of her colonies.