At the end of the 18th century, Americans of Spanish origin still saw in their "motherland" a sort of image of themselves, but within a few years, the Colonies were characterized by violent movements, intent on freeing themselves from imperial domination. The causes and origins have been widely debated, but key to the debate is whether the movements were reactionary and arose in response to events on the Iberian Peninsula, or whether they were instead ideological revolutions of national liberation. This essay will first discuss ideas of national liberation, then changes in the structure of Spanish authority, focusing on the economic origins of the movements, and finally the effects of the Napoleonic War. I will essentially conclude that the implementation of radical policies by the Bourbon monarchy undermined the legitimacy of imperial rule, undermining the dynamics of colonial relations developed under the Habsburgs, and created a new crisis of the “moral economy.” However, the importance of Napoleon's rule over Spain should not be underestimated. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay However, it is wrong to discredit the argument that the revolutions were, at least in part, due to nationalist sentiments. For example, Michael T. Ducey highlights this idea and extends it by arguing that it was not just elite-driven - "elite concerns seeped into indigenous insurgent camps, which then gave rise to new meanings to questions of constitutionalism", which gave rise to the 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 rhetoric emphasizing national service rather than royal service. Similarly, Lynch describes the emerging nationalism as "powerful", as Americans began to see themselves as very different from the Spanish. But many theorists of national identities assume that nationalism in this era was very thin and involved a fraction of the population – a sentiment I tend to share. Just because Hispanic Americans saw themselves as different did not mean their rebellions were fueled by a national consciousness. Peter Bakewell also focuses on nationalist sentiments, but his argument takes the form of a more recent school of thought; seeing these movements as part of the period of the Atlantic Revolutions, largely fueled by Enlightenment ideals, a sentiment with which Jeremy Adelman shares. For example, Bakewell argues that there was a "growing Creole awareness of the geographic, economic, and human realities of the different colonies" that led to the adoption of Enlightenment ideas aimed at challenging traditional orders, which ultimately led to aspirations for independence. While there is merit to the argument that some Creole elites were trained in enlightened ideals, it is certainly erroneous 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, because he focuses too much on the Creole elite, who alone cannot explain the rise of the rebellions, since it was the non-elites who fought in the movements. Essentially, nationalist sentiments were created, or rather national consciousness was aroused by, reactions to events in thepeninsula and therefore did not provoke the independence movements in Spanish America. However, the end of the Habsburg Monarchy marked the beginning of the Habsburg Monarchy. events that would lead to the independence movements in Spanish America. The French Bourbons “were to overhaul the goals and methods of Spanish imperial government,” but in doing so they caused a collapse of power structures both in Spain and in relations with its colonies. This was achieved initially through the Bourbons' implementation of a more executive and centralized style of government, as opposed to that of the previous consultative style of government, seen in their use of advisory councils. Furthermore, the landed aristocracy was excluded from the administration, leading to the disillusionment of the elites. This was also replicated in the Indies, for example the Spanish administrators replaced the current corregidores and alcaldes mayores and created new viceroys. These were seen as attacks by the local population, which also led to disillusionment and distrust, which created the preconditions for independence movements. However, the key to the disruption of both power structures was the change in sovereignty. As John Lynch argues, the Spanish administration previously possessed political power through little military intervention, but instead derived its power from the uncontested sovereignty of the Crown, reinforced by a unique relationship with the Church. This is also at the heart of Williamson's argument. He argues that the Bourbon reforms replaced a particularly Spanish symbiosis between Crown and Church. However, the French Bourbons implemented stricter French absolutism: the monarchy now claimed the power of its sovereignty enshrined in "divine right", which left little room for the Church to legitimize the power and its own power was therefore reduced. Ultimately, this dissolved a constraining colonial force, which deeply divided society both at home and abroad. But the Bourbons went further; they were keen to limit the power of the Church because they considered its wealth "unproductive" and therefore tried to transfer ownership to them. This weakened the political foundations of the Catholic monarchy and ultimately the political status quo was upended, as was the Crown's authority in India. The climate created was one of division – an obvious precursor to independence. The collapse of this imperial dynamic was also largely not attributable to economic factors. The implications of the Bourbons' economic reforms aroused resentment. Largely, economic control over Spanish America was exercised in order to directly benefit the metropolis, for example economic gains were diverted directly to Spain, with royal monopolies imposed on commodities and also l increase in the “alcabala” (sales tax). This essentially deprived local economies of a vital monetary reserve, but also had an impact on Creole elites in the form of the "royal fifth" and the push for donations to the Crown, which thus brought together the wealthy and the poor, the Spaniards and the Creoles and even the mestizos and the Indians. their alienation from the “motherland”. However, rather than directly provoking the demand for independence, Lynch emphasized that this "instead created a climate of resentment". Furthermore, the war with Great Britain (1779–1783) only catalyzed the situation: as the war continued, economic demand on the colonies increased (colonial revenuetraditionally represented twenty percent of the revenues of the Spanish treasury, but declined to zero percent in 1779). in times of war.) It is therefore not surprising that riots and rebellions occurred in conjunction with tax demands, a sentiment with which many historians agree; Both Lynch and Penguin attribute the riots in New Granada (1781) and southern Peru (1780) to tax increases. Indeed, in New Granada, in 1781, the Creoles and the mestizos “surprised the authorities by the violence of their protests” in reaction to the tax. However, it is essential to view this not as the sole driver of the rebellions, but rather as the fact that Hispanic Americans were not consulted on Spain's foreign policy, nor on their own economic policies, and that they therefore turned to ideas of self-assessment. governance – rather than the search for new systems of government as a manifestation of ideas of nationalist liberation. Additionally, in recent years there has been a focus on "the story from below", which tends to neglect society's elites, as they are seen as unrepresentative. However, in this case, the ideas of independence were born in this particular social stratum. These concerns stemmed largely from economic grievances, particularly related to trade. Edwin Williamson argued along these lines; he states that this question of trade was a question of relative change. In the late 17th century, Spanish Americans engaged in extensive trade with the Far East through widespread smuggling, but a relatively lax Habsburg monarchy did little to prevent this. . However, the Bourbon reforms reverted to stricter terms of trade, which encroached on the economic freedom of elites. Lynch adds significantly to this argument, highlighting the role that economic grievances play in promoting ideas of independence. For example, he claims that the colonies were historically supposed to benefit the metropolis in terms of trade, but that the Spanish economy had become dislocated; the trade of Spain and America competed, as both were largely agrarian societies, rather than complementing each other. Exchanges between the two countries were therefore characterized by “rivalry and not integration”. Furthermore, by the end of the 18th century, the war had destroyed the Spanish trade monopoly and the government was forced to make trade concessions. The Spanish colonies rejoiced, their foreign trade was flourishing - for example exports increased from 1,389,219 dollars in 1795 to 8,437,659 in 1801. The colonies had therefore tasted independence, realizing the obvious advantages of foreign trade, which had previously been denied to them. They came to recognize that all their trade problems arose from colonial control, and that self-government therefore made unrestricted trade possible. These Hispanic American economic grievances and, therefore, the actions of its people can also be strongly paralleled with EP Thompson's theory of "moral economy." ", or at least this partly explains why the working classes were mobilized. Although this theory has been widely applied to earlier colonial riots, this view can certainly be extended to independence movements. Spanish Americans had become accustomed to the relative security of the Habsburg monarchy and their colonial relations; therefore, Bourbon disturbances sparked rebellion and protests when the terms of local ethics.