No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
One of the most provocative questions about the process of Spanish American independence is why Spain was not able during the period of the so-called “first absolutist restoration”— 1814 to 1820—to capitalize on its massive military victories in America and restore royal power to its fullest. In 1814 and 1815 royal armies in America destroyed the rebel governments and suppressed the rebel armies in Mexico, New Granada, Venezuela, Quito, Peru and Chile. Only in the Río de la Plata did an independent government continue to exist. It was clear that independence was not the inevitable destiny of the Spanish kingdoms in America. In Spain itself the king, Ferdinand VII, crossed the Spanish border after six years of captivity in France at the hands of Napoleon and on May 4, 1814, restored the absolute power of the throne by a coup d'etat, annulling the Constitution of 1812 and the liberal Cortes. Throughout the empire loyalists rejoiced. In both Spain and America the forces of conservatism had overcome the threat of radical political and social reforms. Few great imperial states in world history have been granted such a second chance, such an opportunity for rebuilding and reconciliation.
Research for this project was made possible by a Canada Council Leave Fellowship.
1 Artola, Miguel (ed.), Memorias de tiempos de Fernando VII, 2 vols., “Biblioteca de Autores Españoles,” 97 and 98 (Madrid, 1957), 1:lv.Google Scholar
2 Suárez, Federico, La crisis política del antiguo régimen en España (1800–1841), 2d. ed., aug. (Madrid, 1958), 32,Google Scholar 58–60.
3 Gallego, Miguel Artola, La España de Fernando VII, vol. 26 Google Scholar in Pidal, Ramón Menéndez (ed.), Historia de España (Madrid, 1968), 544,Google Scholar 555–557. This is the major narrative on the reign of Ferdinand VII. One of the guarantees the French king Louis XVIII attempted to exact from Ferdinand in 1823 when French armies again restored full royal power was that he would not recreate the uncontrolled absolutism of 1814–1820. Ferdinand declared he had never been an absolutist, but once firmly restored to power proceeded to launch a bloodier despotism than before. This subtle distinction between the moderate absolutism of the Bourbons in the 18th century and the unrestrained absolutism attempted by Ferdinand has been missed by English-speaking historians of the era. For characterizations of Ferdinand VII, see Payne, Stanley G. A History of Spain and Portugal, 2 vols. (Madison, 1972), 2:428 Google Scholar; Carr, Raymond Spain, 1808–1939 (Oxford, 1966), 120 Google Scholar; and Lovett, Gabriel H., Napoleon and the Birth of Modern Spain, 2 vols. (New York, 1965), 2:824.Google Scholar
4 See the differing interpretation of Resnick, Enoch F. “Spain’s Reaction to Portugal’s Invasion of the Banda Oriental in 1816,” Revista de Historia de América, 73–74 (1972), 131–143.Google Scholar Resnick published the same article, with only minor differences, as “A Family Imbroglio: Brazil’s Invasion of the Banda Oriental in 1816 and Repercussions on the Iberian Peninsula, 1816–1820,” Revista de História (São Paulo), 51 (1975), 179–205. Resnick seems to suggest that the Spanish mobilization in Extremadura in 1817 was, as Wellington thought, “mere bully.” Perhaps it was, but in December, 1819, the plan to conquer Portugal was again resurgent. The explanation lies in my differing scenario—first the attack on Montevideo, then the movement against Portugal, by which Spain would have its cake and eat it too—and in my focus on the later period—1819—compared to Resnick’s focus on 1817.
5 de León, José García y Pizarro, , Memorias, ed., prol. and notes by Alonso-Castrillo, Alvaro 2 vols. (Madrid, 1953).Google Scholar Vázquez Figueroa’s memoir is 285–298 of vol. 2. The minister, in spite of his long last name, preferred to be known as Pizarro. Born in Spain, he grew up in Quito, where his father was president.
6 Artola, , La España de Fernando VII, 578–593.Google Scholar
7 Pizarro, , Memorias, 1:259–260.Google Scholar
8 Ibid., 2:295–296.
9 Ibid., 1:264.
10 Ibid., 1:281.
11 Royal decree, Madrid, June 26, 1814, Archivo General de Indias, Seville (Hereafter cited as AGI), Indiferente 669.
l2 Consejo de Indias consulta, January 26, 1818, AGI, Indiferente 1358.
13 Minister of War to Council of the Indies, Madrid, October 22, 1815, AGI, Indiferente 1355.
14 A portion of the byzantine negotiation concerning English mediation—which would have required free foreign trade—is outlined in “Extracto histórico y razonado de la negociación seguida entre el govierno Ingles y la España acerca de la mediación ofrecida por aquel govierno,” 1826, AGI, Indiferente 1571.
15 Pizarro, , Memorias, 1:263.Google Scholar
16 Exposition of Pizarro, Madrid, June 9, 1818, AGI, Estado 89.
17 Juan Antonio de Roxas Queypo and Matias d’Escute to Duque de San Fernando, Madrid, November 18, 1819, AGI, Estado 90.
18 Memoria of Baquíjano, Madrid, August 31, 1814, AGI, Estado 87.
19 “Ideas sobre pacificación de D. Luis de Onís y D. Juan Alvarez,” Toledo, 1817, AGI, Estado 88.
20 Pizarro, , Memorias, 1:266–267.Google Scholar
21 Consejo de Indias consulta, Madrid, May 17, 1816, AGI, Estado 88.
22 Voto particular of Manuel de la Bodega, Madrid, October 24, 1816, AGI, Estado 87.
23 Memoria of Conde de Casa Flores, Madrid, December 3, 1816, AGI, Estado 87.
24 Pizarro to Secretary of Grace and Justice, Madrid, September 28, 1817, AGI, Indiferente 1357.
25 Exposition of Pizarro, Madrid, June 9, 1818, AGI, Estado 89.
26 Anselmo de Ribas and Domingo Dutari to the king, Madrid, July 14, 1818, AGI, Estado 89.
27 Juan Antonio Yandiola, Memoria Madrid, January 29, 1815, AGI, Estado 87; Friede, Juan, La otra verdad, la independencia americana vista por los españoles, 2d. ed. (Bogotá, 1972).Google Scholar
28 de Santillán, Ramón, Memorias (1815–1856), ed. and notes by Berazaluce, Ana María 2 vols. (Pamplona, 1960), 1:9 Google Scholar; Woodward, Margaret L. “The Spanish Army and the Loss of America, 1810–1824,” Hispanic American Historical Review, 48, no. 4 (November, 1968), 586–607 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Artola, , La España de Fernando VII, 634.Google Scholar
29 Proceedings of Junta Militar de Indias, May 8, 1818, AGI, Estado 102.
30 Proceedings of Junta of ministers, August 1, 1818, AGI, Estado 90.
31 Calleja to Minister of State, Arcos de la Frontera, September 29, 1819, AGI, Estado 103.
32 Order to Casa Flores, Madrid, December 16, 1818, AGI, Estado 102.
33 Quoted in Artola, , La España de Fernando VII, 634.Google Scholar
34 Quoted in Ibid., 668.
35 The government at Rio de Janeiro had transferred a veteran army of 5,000 men under command of Lt. Gen. Carlos Frederico Lecór from Portugal to Brazil in 1815 in preparation for the attack on the Banda Oriental. Street, John, Artigas and the Emancipation of Uruguay (Cambridge, 1959), 285.Google Scholar
36 Marques, A.H. de Oliveira, History of Portugal, 2 vols. (New York, 1972); 1:429.Google Scholar
37 Pizarro, , Memorias, 1:216.Google Scholar Pizarro helped the king burn state papers and testified that if any documents remained that could embarrass the king it was only because Ferdinand had kept them from the flame.
38 Ibid., 1:263.
39 Ibid., 1:266.
40 Carlota Joaquina to Pedro Cevallos, Rio de Janeiro, June 15, 1816, AGI, Estado 98.
41 Andrés Villalba to Pedro Cevallos, Rio de Janeiro, June 28, 1816, AGI, Estado 98.
42 Minutes, Secretaría del Consejo de Estado, Madrid, October 18, 1816, AGI, Estado 83.
43 The Spanish chargé in Rio, Andrés Villalba, had recommended the king not marry his young niece because she was too frail to bear him a son. When Villalba returned to Spain from his post in Brazil the Queen asked that he be sent away. As a consequence, he was made chargé in Constantinople. Pizarro, , Memorias, 1:209.Google Scholar Yet Villalba was right; on December 26, 1818 the Queen, aged 21, died in childbirth.
44 Pizarro, , Memorias, 1:220.Google Scholar
45 Ibid., 1:221–222. “S.M. estaba perfectamente penetrado.”
46 Fernán Núñez to Pizarro, Paris, October 6, 1817, AGI, Estado 100.
47 Duque del Parque to Secretary of State, Madrid, June 6, 1819; Duque de San Fernando’s opinion on Montevideo negotiations, Madrid, June 6, 1819; Duque del Infantado's opinion, Madrid, July 10, 1819, all in AGI, Estado 83.
48 Pizarro, , Memorias, 1:274.Google Scholar
49 Ibid., 1:223.
50 Report to Lozano de Torres, Madrid, August 13, 1818, AGI, Estado 89.
51 Artola, , La España de Fernando VII, 586 Google Scholar; Vázquez Figueroa’s memoirs, in Pizarro, , Memorias, 2:285.Google Scholar
52 Duque de Fernan Núñez to Pizarro, Paris, March 10, 1818, AGI, Estado 102.
53 Zea Bermúdez to Casa Irujo, Aix-la-Chapelle, October 29, 1818, AGI, Estado 101.
54 Zea Bermúdez to Casa Irujo, Aix-la-Chapelle, November 25, 1818, AGI, Estado 101.
55 There was a three-month interregnum between Casa Irujo and San Fernando when Manuel González Salmón was minister of State (June 12-September 12, 1819).
56 San Fernando to San Carlos, Madrid, December 19, 1819, AGI, Estado 104. Italics added. While the copies of the letter itself were probably destroyed, San Fernando’s secretary unwittingly filed the dictated rough draft.
57 José María Alós to minister of State, Madrid, January 4, 1820, AGI, Estado 104.
58 San Fernando to Zea Bermúdez, Madrid, January 6, 1820, AGI, Estado 104.
59 Joaquín Francisco Campusano to Pizarro, London, June 17, 1817, AGI, Estado 100.
60 Fernan Núñez to Pizarro, London, January 7, 1817, AGI, Estado 100.
61 Duque de Frías to Evaristo Pérez de Castro, London, September 19, 1820, AGI, Estado 89.
62 Fernan Núñez to Pizarro, Paris, October 15, 1817, AGI, Estado 100; Resnick, , “Spain’s Reaction to Portugal’s Invasion,” 139.Google Scholar
63 The best explanation for the army’s discontent, though brief, is in Christiansen, E., The Origins of Military Power in Spain 1800–1854 (London, 1967), 18–22.Google Scholar The fundamental problem was that from 1814 to 1820 Ferdinand and Eguia had been engaged in an effort to disband the huge army of 160,000 men left standing at the conclusion of the war with Napoleon, thus dispossessing the officers, while at the same time the enlisted ranks continued to be filled with forced draftees who were poorly paid but subjected to a revived harsh discipline. The officers and soldiers by no means agreed on what they wanted—they decided only two days before the rebellion to proclaim the Constitution of 1812—but all agreed change was necessary. Christiansen says: “The mismanagement of 1814–20 had been so disastrous that soldiers of every political persuasion were anxious for changes.”
64 On the Riego revolt see principally Comellas, José Luis, Los primeros pronunciamientos en España, 1814–1820 (Madrid, 1958), 303–353.Google Scholar Also see Woodward, , “The Spanish Army,” 595–597.Google Scholar
65 Miguel de Lastarria to San Fernando, Madrid, February 23, 1820, AGI, Estado 104.
66 Consulta, Council of State, Madrid, November 7, 1821, AGI, Estado 89.
67 Pizarro, , Memorias, 1:274.Google Scholar
68 Ibid., 2:297.
69 “Declaratoria de independencia del Pueblo Dominicano,” Santo Domingo, December 1, 1821, AGI, Indiferente 1569.