Discussion Question(s) What were the colonial misgivings about "monarchy-wide  cortes  in February of 1810 (p. 350). What do you think of the relationship between the monarchy (or the Central Junta) and the colonials in Spanish America? Do you think that the  criollos were waiting for independence the whole time? Why or why not? Lecture 13 Over the last two weeks, we talked about the Caroline and Bourbon Reforms in Spanish America, and I am sure that after reading Chapters 9 and 10, you feel like movements for Independence in colonial Latin America were only days away from happening (maybe only a week, since I post these on Sunday). But no! As upset as the criollos  might have been by the dramatic economic and political changes that occurred (not the least of which the fact that the power that they had worked for generations to gain was being taken away by  peninsulares ), the criollos still remained loyal to the Spanish Crown. Independence was certainly something that was whispered about in dark corners, but only by the bold, and perhaps the stupid. If we start during this era of Independence in the Americas, we  have to start with the American Revolution--  Hey-- I'm not happy about it either (this is  Latin American History darn it!)! But the American Revolution was the first war for independence in the Americas, so it certainly played an important role.  Kind of. I mean, your book is kind of right-- the French Revolution definitely played a much bigger role, but keep in mind: 1) The American Revolution was fought from around 1775 to about 1783 2) The French Revolution was fought from 1789 through the 1790s.  Just because the American Revolution was first does not mean that it had a bigger influence than the French (it did NOT). However, keep in mind that the movements for independence throughout Latin America were just as much about ideas as they were about economics-- ok, they were  almost  as much about ideas as economics-- and thus, knowing that there was a neighbor to the north that was able to shrug off colonial power certainly had a psychological effect, if not quite a political one.  The truth is, the eventual movements of independence throughout Latin America was really a combination of things, but one of the largest factors was time--  time was needed for these ideas to sink in, and time was needed for things to totally unravel in Europe. And it really did start with the French Revolution, and Napoleon's rise to power:  No, not that Napoleon, THIS Napoleon: Also happening in the late 18th century (the late 1700s) was the Haitian Revolution, which, if the world wasn't turned upside down already, it definitely was by then. Check out the generally informative Powerpoint I put together about the Haitian Revolution (via your email), and connect it to your text. Freedom was happening everywhere, and it was happening in many different ways (and in Spain, it was happening largely in the context of Napoleon's at.

1. Discussion Question(s)
What were the colonial misgivings about "monarchy-wide
cortes
in February of 1810 (p. 350). What do you think of the
relationship between the monarchy (or the Central Junta) and
the colonials in Spanish America? Do you think that the
criollos
were waiting for independence the whole time? Why or why
not?
Lecture 13
Over the last two weeks, we talked about the Caroline and
Bourbon Reforms in Spanish America, and I am sure that after
reading Chapters 9 and 10, you feel like movements for
Independence in colonial Latin America were only days away
from happening (maybe only a week, since I post these on
Sunday). But no!
As upset as the
criollos
might have been by the dramatic economic and political changes
that occurred (not the least of which the fact that the power that
they had worked for generations to gain was being taken away
by
peninsulares
), the
criollos
still remained loyal to the Spanish Crown. Independence was
certainly something that was whispered about in dark corners,
but only by the bold, and perhaps the stupid. If we start during
this era of Independence in the Americas, we
have

2. to start with the American Revolution--
Hey-- I'm not happy about it either (this is
Latin American History
darn it!)!
But the American Revolution was the first war for independence
in the Americas, so it certainly played an important role.
Kind of.
I mean, your book is kind of right-- the French Revolution
definitely played a much bigger role, but keep in mind:
1) The American Revolution was fought from around 1775 to
about 1783
2) The French Revolution was fought from 1789 through the
1790s.
Just because the American Revolution was first does not mean
that it had a bigger influence than the French (it did NOT).
However, keep in mind that the movements for independence
throughout Latin America were just as much about ideas as they
were about economics-- ok, they were
almost
as much about ideas as economics-- and thus, knowing that
there was a neighbor to the north that was able to shrug off
colonial power certainly had a psychological effect, if not quite
a political one.
The truth is, the eventual movements of independence
throughout Latin America was really a combination of things,
but one of the largest factors was
time--
time was needed for these ideas to sink in, and time was needed

3. for things to totally unravel in Europe.
And it really did start with the French Revolution, and
Napoleon's rise to power:
No, not that Napoleon, THIS Napoleon:
Also happening in the late 18th century (the late 1700s) was the
Haitian Revolution, which, if the world wasn't turned upside
down already, it definitely was by then. Check out the generally
informative Powerpoint I put together about the Haitian
Revolution (via your email), and connect it to your text.
Freedom was happening everywhere, and it was happening in
many different ways (and in Spain, it was happening largely in
the context of Napoleon's attempt to take over the world!).
The Spanish (in Spain) and Portuguese were freaked out about
what was happening in France-- the revolution-- and rightfully
so, because once Napoleon was in power, he directly threatened
both Spain and Portugal. In response, Portugal simply moved
the ruling family to Brazil (where they stayed nice and cozy for
a while). Napoleon put his brother, Joseph Bonaparte, in the
ruling seat in Spain, and things got a bit ugly:
1) With a king in power that most people in Spain did not
recognize as their rightful king (Joseph Bonaparte), the people
fought back.
2) They gave a nickname to Joseph Bonaparte-- "Pepe Botella,"
because he was allegedly a heavy drinker, and alcoholic. Now,
there is not a whole lot of proof to back this up, whether or not
the accusation was true didn't matter. What was important is

4. that the war against this supposed king of Spain was fought by
the people in Spain, who employed not only military tactics, but
also propaganda (by implying that he was a drunk) to unseat
him.
3) Now, this one is ugly, but also
not ugly:
Since no one wanted to acknowledge the kingship of Joseph
Bonaparte, the Spanish people actually started becoming more
democratic (though not totally-- they were organizing among
themselves, having elections, hearing each other's grievances,
and basically running a country, all while either ignoring or
fighting Napoleon's brother, the alleged alcoholic. In a sense,
people in Spain (and the colonies) are beginning to get a taste
of what the world outside of a monarchy looks like, and they
like it!
(the above meme is not historically accurate. To my knowledge,
Mel Gibson has never been near Spain)
In fact, over time, the Spanish people wrote their own
constitution (1812, Constitution of Cadíz, after the Cortes of
Cadíz in 1810), had their own government, their own ideas of
what citizenship meant. This kingdom in Spain was moving
towards its own independence phase-- independence from
monarchy! (this did not work-- we will find out more about this
next week. What happened there was kind of ugly too.
Cliffhanger-- you're going to have to wait until next week to
find out!)
(or you could just read the next chapter, I suppose. You have
the book, after all!)

5. Back to the Americas
Let's return to colonial Latin America for a second. Because of
the Bourbon and Caroline Reforms, things were bad for
everyone, but most of all the
criollos
(creoles). They were watching what power they had slip away,
and meanwhile, their colonial masters (the Spanish, represented
throughout Spanish America by
peninsulares
) were struggling to survive back in Europe.
But did the
criollos
want democracy? Did they want to be free of their colonial
masters? I'm inclined to say no-- because I'd bet that a lot of
them looked over towards the Caribbean, to Haiti-- where slaves
were rising up and fighting against the French, or their colonial
masters of a different sort), specifically, and started worrying
about all of the slaves, Indians, mestizos, and other
castas
who were in a much more desperate position than they were,
and did not want that to happen to them.
Despite the fact that Enlightenment ideologies encompassed all
different kinds of knowledge (religious, social, political,
economic, etc), the one that the
criollos
were probably least concerned with was the "political." Even
the G
rito de Dolores
in Mexico in 1810 might not have been about independence.
Why not? Well, at the time, Latin American colonials were not
as concerned with monarchies-- they were concerned with
bad monarchies.
For example, in Mexico, one of the things that the tens of

6. thousands of Indians and Mestizos led by Father Miguel
Hidalgo shouted repeatedly was "death to bad government!"
I'm going to end this lecture with a long quote from the book,
which I think is important enough to make sure it is said twice:
"Among the frequently mentioned 'causes of independence' are
creole--peninsular hostility, a growing creole self-
consciousness, trade restrictions, the Enlightenment, the
precedent of the American Revolution, and the revolutionary
ideology of the French Revolution. Although neither
individually nor collectively were these 'causes' responsible for
the initiation of insurgent movements, once open conflict was
under way, they did affect the course of the war, justify actions
that insurgents took, and influence new forms of political
organization." (p. 353)
As always, it was a collection of events, moments, and peoples
that led to the independence movements becoming what they
were. And next week (finally!) we are going to talk about some
of those movements.