The End of Iberian Rule on the American Continent, 1770–1830

Abstract

Like all other European and Asiatic dynastic empires, the Iberian empires functioned according to a combination of internal dynamics and external pressures. The relation between core and peripheries operated in a complex fashion. In political terms, the corethe centers of power in Madrid and Lisbonexercised dominion over all the components of the Monarchy, but this did not always signify effective control. Distance, time, and a type of self-attributed leeway on the part of enforcing agencies on the spot considerably modified the efficacy of royal policy. Added to these factors was the political necessity of reconciling through informal negotiation metropolitan interests with the power groups formed within the American territories. composite monarchiesThese were not unusual in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when Spain and Portugal largely began their experience as colonial powers. 1 At first sight, the Kingdom of Portugal's territorial unity made it appear 1 The Austrian Habsburgs secured the crowns of Bohemia and Hungary in 1526, after gaining the Burgundian inheritance in 1477. After 1516, the grandson of Mary of Burgundy and son of Philip I of Austria and Juana of Castile succeeded to both the Spanish kingdoms in 1516, and in 1519 was elected Holy Roman Emperor. From 1520, the Kingdom of Castile acquired large swathes of territory in continental America. The three Basque Provinces and the Kingdom of Navarra, all associated with the Crown of Castile, retained their traditional privileges. When the Spanish Habsburg king acquired the Crown of Portugal (from 1580 to 1640), institutions of the two (hitherto rival) Monarchies remained distinct. See

La jurisdicción ordinaria de Santa Fe en el Virreinato de Nueva Granada. Estructura, cambios y relaciones

“…Sin embargo, debe tenerse en cuenta que la propia Corona actuaba dentro de limitaciones como la «Ley divina» y las «leyes fundamentales del reino», que establecían las relaciones con las diferentes corporaciones, entre ellas la Iglesia. La principal función del Rey seguía siendo la de administrar justicia 50 , y la monarquía española no pretendía eliminar las estructuras jurídicas corporativas de la sociedad, sino subordinarlas donde pudieran hacerlo 51 . Existían, pues, unos límites al reformismo borbónico, como destaca Carlos Garriga, quien ha mostrado, por ejemplo, que los criterios rectores del gobierno de la justicia se mantuvieron prácticamente invariados durante ese periodo reformista, no hubo ninguna modificación legal relevante en ese ese sentido, y los cambios institucionales de Carlos III seguían respondiendo a la lógica del modelo vigente de las instituciones 52 .…”

The rise of the nation‐state during the Age of Revolution: Revisiting the debate on the roots of nations and nationalism

“…The Wars of Independence in Spanish America were similarly convoluted, but violence between different groups in society was endemic. A large part of their success was due to the fact that King Ferdinand VII of Spain failed to get military support from the Holy Alliance (Hamnett, 2017, pp. 107–304; Pérez Vejo, 2019).…”

“…Most liberal “patriots,” however, still wavered between a Spanish constitutional regime and outright independence. The refusal of the Cortes to grant the American colonies equal representation, some form of municipal or provincial autonomy and free trade seriously undermined their loyalty to the new regime in Spain (Hamnett, 2017, pp. 119–144 and 176–208; Sobrevilla Perea, 2019).…”

“…By 1826, all parts of the Spanish American mainland had become independent nation‐states, each with a constitution and an elected parliament. (Hamnett, 2017, pp. 209–304) Another liberal revolution in Portugal, which took place in 1820, provided the opportunity for Brazilian elites to declare the independence of Brazil.…”

“…Prince Pedro, who had been left behind as regent when the royal family returned to Portugal, became Emperor of Brazil in 1822 and shortly after a constitution was adopted (Elliott, 2006, pp. 325–403; Hamnett, 2017, pp. 244–249, 254–264 and 274–276).…”