Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T18:46:03.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutional and Political Impediments to Spain's Settlement of the American Rebellions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

Timothy E. Anna
Timothy E. Anna*
Affiliation:
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Spain's imperial government, in facing the political and military threat posed by the Wars of Independence in America, could be no stronger than the sum of its parts. Among the important questions not previously detailed concerning Spanish American independence, a significant one is why metropolitan Spain itself responded so weakly and indecisively to the danger. There were, of course, severe constraints on resources as well as limitations in terms of the leadership. These two elements, however, while they were certainly real, need not have been automatically decisive. After all, despite incredible hardship and difficulty, the Spanish Comisión de Reemplazos—the Cádiz-based supply committee made up of merchants—alone and by its own tally between 1811 and 1820 dispatched thirty expeditions of peninsular troops to America involving more than 47,000 men and a cost of 350 million reales. The Morillo expedition in 1815involved 12,254 men. The so-called “Great Expedition” that gathered at Cádiz for use in Buenos Aires consisted of 14,000 men before it revolted in January 1820. In July 1820 the minister of War told the Cortes that Spain had sent a total of 27,342 troops to America since the king's restoration in 1814. Thus there was a military response from the metropolis, to say nothing, of course, of the more critical military mobilization of the American viceregal governments. One could also argue that, despite the undoubted failings of individual Spanish leaders under both the Cortes and the absolutist regimes, the political chaos at least brought a number of differing political persuasions to power. After all, Spain experienced in these years six major transformations of its political system. The leadership ran the gamut of political ideology, from extreme conservatives to extreme liberals. Pintos Vieites, in an attempt to revise Ferdinand VII favorably, even argues that the king in the first restoration purposely appointed moderates in order to hear their advice. While the parliamentarians of 1812 and 1820 tended to be young and relatively inexperienced, most of the ministers had served in the previous reign or had substantial experience.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , April 1982 , pp. 481 - 495
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Costeloe, Michael P., “Spain and the Latin American Wars of Independence: The Free Trade Controversy, 1810–1820,” Hispanic American Historical Review, 61:2 (May, 1981), 209–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Resnick, Enoch F., “The Council of State and Spanish America, 1814–1820,” Ph.D. dissertation, American University, 1970, pp. 183–84.Google Scholar

2 Almagro, Melchor Fernández, La emancipación de América y su reflejo en la conciencia Española, 2nd ed. (Madrid, 1957), p. 92.Google Scholar

3 Pintos Vieites, María del Carmen, La política de Fernando VII entre 1814 y 1820 (Pamplona, 1958).Google Scholar

4 Atard, Vicente Palacio, Fin de la sociedad española del antiguo régimen, 2nd ed. (Madrid, 1961).Google Scholar

5 “Instrucción de la Junta Suprema de Sevilla a sus diputados a la Junta Central,” Sevilla, 24 August 1808, Archivo Histórico Nacional (Madrid), Estado 82.

6 Pearce, Robert Bouiere, Memoirs and Correspondence of the most noble Richard Marquess Wellesley, 3 vols. (London, 1846),Google Scholar 3:80.

7 Instructions to Cisneros from Junta Central, Seville, 24 March, 9 April, 9 May, and 22 May 1809, AHN, Estado 55.

8 de Toreno, Conde, Historia del levantamiento, guerra y revolución de España, Biblioteca de Autores Españoles, no. 64 (Madrid, 1953), 306,Google Scholar 398.

9 Memoria of José de Baquíjano, Madrid, 31 August 1814, Archivo General de Indias (Seville), Estado 87.

10 King, James F., “The Colored Castes and American Representation in the Cortes of Cádiz,” Hispanic American Historical Review, 33:1 (February, 1953), 33–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Toreno, , Historia, 393.Google Scholar

l2 Quoted in Almagro, Fernández, La emancipación de América, 76.Google Scholar

13 Suárez, Federico, La crisis política del antiguo régimen en España (1800–1840), 2nd ed. (Madrid, 1958), 58–60.Google Scholar

14 y Pizarra, José García de León, Memorias, 2 vols. (Madrid, 1953),Google Scholar 1:263; Exposition of Pizarro, Madrid, 9 June 1818, AGI, Estado 89.

15 Juan Antonio de Roxas Queypo to Duke of San Fernando, Madrid, 18 November 1819, AGI, Estado 90.

16 Resnick, , “Council of State,” p. 21.Google Scholar

17 Costeloe, , “Free Trade Controversy,” 209–34.Google Scholar

18 Cardinal Bourbon to Secretary of Ultramar, Madrid, 19 April 1820, AGI, Indiferente 1568.

l9 Council of State Consulta, Madrid, 7 November 1821, AGI, Indiferente 1569 and Estado 89.

20 “Informe del Gobierno a las Cortes sobre medidas de pacificación de Ultramar,” Madrid, 17 January 1822, AGI, Indiferente 1571.

21 Ferdinand to Alexander 1, Madrid, 10 August 1822, AHN, Estado 2579.