At the end of the 18th century, Spanish Americans still saw their "motherland" as a sort of image of themselves, however within a few years the colonies were characterized by violent movements, intent on liberation from imperial domination. The causes and origins have been widely debated, however, the key to the debate is whether the movements were reactionary and arose in response to events on the Iberian Peninsula, or whether they were rather ideological revolutions of national liberation. This essay will first discuss ideas of national liberation, then changes to the structure of Spanish authority, moving to focus on the economic origins of the movements, and finally focusing on the effects of the Napoleonic War. I will essentially conclude that the implementation of radical policies by the Bourbon monarchy damaged the legitimacy of imperial rule, undermining the dynamics of the colonial relationship developed under the Habsburgs, and creating yet another crisis with 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay However, it is misleading to discredit the thesis that the revolutions were, at least in part, of nationalist sentiments. For example, Michael T. Ducey highlights this idea and extends it by stating that it was not driven by elites alone: ​​"elite concerns filtered into the camps of indigenous insurgents, who then gave new meanings to questions of constitutionalism", which gave rise to 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 that emphasized national service rather than royal service. Lynch similarly describes the nascent nationalism as “powerful,” as Americans began to see themselves as significantly different from the Spanish. But many national identity theorists assume that nationalism in this period was very weak and involved a fraction of the population – a sentiment with which I tend to agree. Just because Hispanic Americans saw themselves as different does not mean their rebellions were fueled by a national consciousness. Peter Bakewell equally focuses on nationalist sentiments, however his argument takes the form of a more recent school of thought; see these movements as part of the period of the Atlantic Revolutions, largely fueled by Enlightenment ideals, a sentiment with which Jeremy Adelman agrees. For example, Bakewell argues that there was a "growing Creole consciousness of the geographic, economic, and human realities of the different colonies" that led to the embrace of Enlightenment ideas of challenging traditional orders, which ultimately led to aspirations of independence. While there is credence to the argument that some Creole elites were educated according to enlightened ideals, it is certainly misleading to claim that these ideals were shared with the lower classes, since Enlightenment secularism was limited to small circles in economic societies. Unlike Ducey, Bakewell certainly makes this mistake, as he focuses too much on the Creole elite, which alone cannot explain the rise of the rebellions, as it was the non-elites who fought in the movements. In essence, nationalist feelings were created, or rather, national consciousness was awakened, by the reactions to the events of the Peninsula, and were therefore not the cause of the independence movements in Spanish America. However, the end of the Habsburg monarchy marked the beginning of the period events that wouldled to independence movements in Spanish America. The French Bourbons "had to reformulate the goals and methods of Spanish imperial government", but in doing so they caused a collapse in power structures both within Spain and in relations with its colonies. This was achieved primarily through the Bourbons implementing a more executive and centralized style of government, in contrast 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, causing disillusionment among the elites. This was also replicated in the Indies, for example Spanish administrators replaced the current corregidores and alcaldes mayores and created new viceroys. These were seen as attacks by locals, which also led to disillusionment and mistrust, which created the conditions 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 enforcement, but rather derived its power from the unchallenged sovereignty of the Crown, strengthened by a unique relationship with the Church. This is also central to Williamson's argument. He claims that the Bourbon reforms replaced a typically Spanish symbiosis between Crown and Church. However, the French Bourbons implemented a more severe French absolutism: the monarchy now claimed the power of their sovereignty derived from "divine right", which left little room for the church to legitimize power and thus their own power was reduced. Ultimately, this dissolved a binding colonial force, which deeply divided society both at home and abroad. But the Bourbons went further; they wished to limit the Church's power as they considered its wealth "unproductive", so they sought to transfer ownership away from their hands. This weakened the political foundations of the Catholic monarchy and eventually the political status quo was upset, as was the Crown's authority in the Indies. The climate created was one of division – a clear precursor to independence. The collapse of these imperial dynamics was also largely unrelated to economic factors. The implications of the Bourbon economic reforms aroused resentment. Largely, economic control over Spanish America was exercised in order to directly benefit the metropolis, for example economic gain was diverted directly to Spain, with royal monopolies imposed on raw materials and also the rise of the "alcabala" (sales tax). This essentially deprived local economies of a vital monetary supply, but also impacted Creole elites in the form of the “royal fifth” and pressure for donations to the Crown, which thus united rich and poor, Spaniards and Creoles, and even mestizos and Indians together in their alienation from the “motherland”. However, rather than directly provoking the demand for independence, Lynch highlighted the fact that this rather generated a climate of resentment. Furthermore, the war with Great Britain (1779-83) acted only as a catalyst of the situation: as the war continued, the economic demand on the colonies increased (colonial revenues traditionally represented twenty percent of the Spanish treasury's income, but decreased at zero percent thereafter). times of war.) So it is not surprising that riots and rebellions arose in conjunction with fiscal grievances, a sentiment with which many historians agree; both Lynch and Penguin credit revolts in New Granada (1781) and southern Peru (1780) as a result of the tax increase. In fact, in New Granada, in 1781, creoles and mestizos «surprised theauthorities with the violence of their protests" in reaction to the taxation. However, it is crucial to see this not as the sole driver of the rebellions, but rather highlighted the problem that Hispanic Americans were not consulted on Spain's foreign policy, or their economic policies, and therefore turned to ideas of their own themselves. governance – rather than the search for new systems of government as a manifestation of ideas of nationalist liberation. Furthermore in recent years, there has been a particular focus on “history from below” and this tends to neglect the elites in society, as they are considered unrepresentative. However, in this case, the ideas of independence originated in this particular social stratum. In large part, these concerns stemmed from economic grievances, particularly related to trade. Edwin Williamson argued to this end; states that this problem with trade was a relative change. In the late 17th century Spanish Americans engaged in extensive trade with the Far East through widespread smuggling, but a relatively permissive Habsburg monarchy did little to prevent this. However, the Bourbon reforms returned to stricter trading conditions, which encroached on the economic freedom of the elites. Lynch makes a notable contribution to this argument by underlining the role that economic demands have in promoting ideas of independence. For example, he states that historically the colonies were supposed to benefit the metropolis in terms of trade, but the Spanish economy had become disjointed; the trade of both Spain and America competed with each other, as both were largely agricultural societies, rather than complementing each other. Trade between the two was therefore characterized by "rivalry and not integration". Furthermore, by the end of the 18th century, war had destroyed Spain's trade monopoly and the government was forced to make trade concessions. The Spanish colonies enjoyed it, their foreign trade flourished: exports rose for example from 1,389,219 dollars in 1795 to 8,437,659 in 1801. The colonies had thus gotten a taste of independence, realizing the obvious advantages of foreign trade that had previously been denied them. They came to recognize that all their trade problems stemmed from colonial control, so self-government made unrestricted trade possible. These Hispanic American economic grievances and consequently the actions of its people can also be strongly paralleled with E. P. Thompson's theory of moral economy. ', or at least goes some way to explaining why the lower classes were mobilised. Although this theory has been widely applied to discuss previous colonial uprisings, 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 disruptions sparked rebellion and protest when the terms of the local subsistence ethic were violated. Perhaps the reason why these tensions have transformed into independence movements this time has a lot to do with the severity of the change in all aspects of the socio-economic system. Despite the importance of the economy, the effect of the Peninsular War cannot be ignored. When Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Spain in 1808 and indefinitely detained the Spanish monarchy, the effect was that of a national disaster. Timoteo Anna states that the Bourbon government became "divided against itself" (in reference to the appearance of multiple juntas, both in Spain and in its colonies). These councils assumed provisional sovereignty, which raised the question: who was now the.