Latest / Sleepy Facts About History / How Did Loyalty to a Captive King Create New Sovereignties? - From Oaths of Allegiance to Autonomous Juntas | Sleepy Facts About History

Transcript

How Did Loyalty to a Captive King Create New Sovereignties? - From Oaths of Allegiance to Autonomous Juntas | Sleepy Facts About History · Sleepy Facts About History

• 0:04
  Welcome to Sleepy Facts About History. In May
• 0:12
  of 1808, Napoleon Bonaparte lured the Spanish
• 0:16
  king and his heir to Bayonne and forced them
• 0:19
  both to renounce their thrones. Within weeks,
• 0:23
  an empire stretching from Madrid to Mexico City
• 0:26
  and from Barcelona to Buenos Aires faced a question
• 0:30
  its laws had never anticipated, who governs when
• 0:33
  the king himself is a prisoner? This episode
• 0:36
  examines the constitutional crisis that rippled
• 0:39
  across the Spanish world and inadvertently set
• 0:42
  the stage for Spanish -American independence.
• 0:45
  The movements that eventually produced independent
• 0:48
  nations did not begin as nationalist revolutions.
• 0:51
  They started as oaths of allegiance to Ferdinand
• 0:55
  VII, rejections of French usurpation, and claims
• 0:58
  to govern in the name of an absent monarch, exploring
• 1:02
  the legal doctrine of the retroversion of sovereignty.
• 1:06
  the formation of local juntas, and the tensions
• 1:09
  of the Cadiz Cortes, this episode reveals how
• 1:12
  loyalty to a captive king became the legal language
• 1:15
  through which autonomous governance was justified
• 1:18
  and expanded. I wanted to understand why the
• 1:22
  familiar picture of heroic revolutionaries leading
• 1:24
  oppressed colonies to freedom is badly out of
• 1:28
  sequence with the actual historical record. Some
• 1:32
  questions sound simple until you try to answer
• 1:35
  them. And the question of who possessed legitimate
• 1:37
  authority in 1808 forced people across the hemisphere
• 1:41
  to improvise solutions using the intellectual
• 1:44
  and institutional materials they had available.
• 1:48
  The result is a fascinating story of how temporary
• 1:51
  measures became permanent habits, and how a monarchical
• 1:54
  crisis slowly transformed into a revolutionary
• 1:57
  situation. In May of 1808, Napoleon Bonaparte
• 2:05
  lured the Spanish king Charles IV, and his son
• 2:08
  Ferdinand VII to the French city of Bayonne.
• 2:12
  There, under the shadow of French bayonets, both
• 2:15
  men signed documents renouncing their claims
• 2:18
  to the Spanish throne. Napoleon then placed his
• 2:22
  own brother Joseph on the throne of Spain. Within
• 2:26
  weeks, the entire Spanish monarchy, an empire
• 2:30
  stretching from Madrid to Mexico City, from Barcelona
• 2:33
  to Buenos Aires, found itself asking a question.
• 2:38
  that no one had prepared for, who possessed legitimate
• 2:41
  authority when the king himself had been taken
• 2:44
  prisoner. This was not merely a Spanish problem.
• 2:48
  It was a crisis that reached across the Atlantic
• 2:52
  and the Pacific, touching every territory that
• 2:55
  recognized the Spanish crown. And it is the central
• 2:59
  question we need to understand if we want to
• 3:02
  grasp how Spanish -American independence began.
• 3:05
  Because it did not begin as a nationalist revolution.
• 3:10
  It began as a constitutional crisis of loyalty
• 3:13
  to a captive king. To understand why this matters,
• 3:17
  we need to set aside a familiar picture. Most
• 3:22
  of us have been taught to imagine Latin American
• 3:24
  independence as a story of heroic revolutionaries,
• 3:28
  Bolívar, San Martín and others, leading oppressed
• 3:32
  colonies to freedom against a distant tyrant.
• 3:35
  That picture is not entirely wrong. But it is
• 3:39
  badly out of sequence. The movements that eventually
• 3:43
  produced independent nations started with something
• 3:46
  quite different. Oaths of allegiance to Ferdinand
• 3:50
  VII, rejections of French usurpation, and claims
• 3:53
  to govern in the name of a king who was not present
• 3:56
  and could not speak. The revolutionaries of 1810
• 4:01
  insisted they were not revolutionaries at all.
• 4:04
  They were caretakers. This paradox is the key
• 4:09
  to everything that followed. The Spanish monarchy
• 4:12
  in 1808 was not a nation -state in the modern
• 4:16
  sense. It was what historians call a composite
• 4:19
  monarchy, a collection of kingdoms and territories
• 4:22
  united not by a shared national identity, but
• 4:26
  by personal loyalty to a single dynastic figure.
• 4:29
  The American territories, the viceroyalties of
• 4:33
  New Spain, Peru, New Granada and Rio de la Plata.
• 4:37
  were not colonies in the way we might imagine.
• 4:41
  They were kingdoms in their own right, legally
• 4:44
  tied to the crown rather than to Spain as a nation.
• 4:47
  When a viceroy took office, he did not represent
• 4:51
  the Spanish nation. He represented the king.
• 4:56
  This distinction is crucial. It meant that when
• 5:00
  Napoleon removed the king, he did not simply
• 5:03
  create a problem of foreign occupation for Spain.
• 5:07
  He created a vacuum of legitimate authority across
• 5:10
  a global political system. The legal doctrine
• 5:13
  that would shape the response to this vacuum
• 5:16
  was not new. Spanish political thought had long
• 5:20
  contained the idea that sovereignty ultimately
• 5:22
  derived from the people, and that in the absence
• 5:25
  of the king, it reverted to the community. This
• 5:29
  was the doctrine of retroversion of sovereignty.
• 5:32
  It was not a revolutionary doctrine in itself.
• 5:36
  It was a constitutional safeguard, a way of answering
• 5:41
  the question of who could act when the monarch
• 5:43
  could not. In 1808, it became the framework within
• 5:48
  which every city, province and kingdom across
• 5:51
  the Spanish world had to operate. The immediate
• 5:55
  response in Spain itself was both popular and
• 5:58
  improvised. On May 2nd, 1808, The people of Madrid
• 6:04
  rose against the French occupation in a spontaneous
• 6:07
  uprising that was brutally suppressed. But the
• 6:11
  resistance spread. Provincial cities formed local
• 6:15
  governing councils, juntas, to coordinate military
• 6:19
  and civil affairs in the name of the absent Ferdinand.
• 6:23
  These juntas were not revolutionary committees
• 6:26
  in the modern sense. They were emergency bodies
• 6:30
  claiming to preserve legitimate authority during
• 6:33
  an interregnum. By September, the provincial
• 6:36
  juntas had consolidated into a central junta
• 6:40
  based in Seville, which claimed to speak for
• 6:43
  the entire monarchy, including the American territories.
• 6:47
  The central junta's claim to authority over the
• 6:50
  Americas was bold and, from an American perspective,
• 6:54
  problematic. The American kingdoms had not been
• 6:58
  consulted in its formation, yet initially most
• 7:02
  American elites accepted it. The first responses
• 7:06
  to news of the Bayonne abdications, which reached
• 7:09
  the Americas by ship in the summer and autumn
• 7:12
  of 1808, were overwhelmingly loyalist. Cities
• 7:17
  and provinces rejected Joseph Bonaparte as an
• 7:20
  imposter, recognized the central junta, and organized
• 7:24
  ceremonies of oath -taking to Ferdinand VII.
• 7:27
  These ceremonies were not merely symbolic gestures.
• 7:31
  They were the material performance of legitimate
• 7:35
  authority. in a system where the king's physical
• 7:37
  presence could not be invoked a viceroy's commission
• 7:42
  arrived with a royal seal authenticated by the
• 7:45
  king's signature officials took oaths before
• 7:49
  his portrait displayed in council chambers and
• 7:53
  public buildings the king's image his seal his
• 7:57
  name on documents these were the tangible tokens
• 8:00
  that made authority visible and transferable
• 8:03
  in 1808 American cities performed these ceremonies
• 8:08
  without the king present, using portraits and
• 8:11
  seals that predated the crisis, swearing loyalty
• 8:14
  to a man whose location was known only through
• 8:17
  unreliable reports. The physical apparatus of
• 8:22
  monarchy continued to function even as its source
• 8:25
  had been removed, but the question of representation
• 8:28
  soon became acute. If the central junta claimed
• 8:33
  to exercise sovereignty on behalf of the entire
• 8:35
  monarchy, Should the American kingdoms not have
• 8:38
  a voice in its deliberations? The Americans were
• 8:42
  not asking for independence. They were asking
• 8:46
  for inclusion. They were asking, in effect, for
• 8:50
  the composite monarchy to function as a genuine
• 8:52
  partnership rather than a peninsular monopoly.
• 8:56
  The Central Junta offered limited American representation,
• 9:00
  but the underlying tension remained. A body formed
• 9:04
  in Spain was asserting authority over kingdoms
• 9:07
  thousands of miles away, and it was doing so
• 9:10
  without their consent. News of the Central Junta's
• 9:14
  formation took weeks or months to reach Mexico
• 9:17
  City or Lima. By the time it arrived, American
• 9:21
  cities had already begun making decisions based
• 9:24
  on incomplete information, forced to act in isolation
• 9:27
  by the sheer material constraint of distance.
• 9:31
  This tension deepened dramatically in January
• 9:34
  of 1810, when the Central Junta dissolved itself
• 9:38
  under military pressure from French forces. In
• 9:42
  its place, it created a Council of Regency. For
• 9:46
  Americans, this was a devastating development.
• 9:49
  If the Central Junta could simply dissolve itself
• 9:53
  and create a new body, what guaranteed the legitimacy
• 9:57
  of any Spanish authority? The Regency claimed
• 10:01
  to govern. until Ferdinand could be restored,
• 10:04
  but its authority rested on the self -abolition
• 10:07
  of its predecessor. The constitutional chain
• 10:11
  of legitimacy, never secure, now appeared broken.
• 10:14
  The response in the Americas was not uniform,
• 10:18
  but it followed a revealing pattern. Across the
• 10:22
  hemisphere, cities used the same legal vocabulary
• 10:25
  and the same claim of temporary authority, even
• 10:29
  as their local circumstances differed. Between
• 10:32
  1809 and 1810, cities across the hemisphere began
• 10:37
  to form their own hunters, claiming to govern
• 10:40
  in the name of Ferdinand VII until his restoration.
• 10:43
  The language was careful, even conservative.
• 10:48
  These were not declarations of independence.
• 10:51
  They were assertions of autonomous authority
• 10:54
  within a monarchical framework. Yet the practical
• 10:58
  implications were transformative. Crito formed
• 11:02
  an early junta in 1809, though it was quickly
• 11:06
  suppressed by royalist forces. Caracas followed
• 11:10
  in April of 1810, Buenos Aires in May, Bogota
• 11:17
  in July, Santiago in September. Each of these
• 11:23
  juntas produced documents, actis, that carefully
• 11:27
  explained their actions as temporary measures
• 11:29
  to preserve legitimate authority. The actor of
• 11:34
  the Cabildo Abierto of Buenos Aires, for instance,
• 11:37
  explicitly states that the junta is acting in
• 11:40
  the name of Ferdinand VII and will surrender
• 11:43
  its authority when he returns. Similar language
• 11:47
  appears in the Caracas and Bogotá documents.
• 11:51
  These were legal instruments, not revolutionary
• 11:54
  manifestos. The formation of these juntas reveals
• 11:58
  something important about the political sociology
• 12:01
  of the Spanish -American world. They typically
• 12:04
  emerged from kobaldos, municipal councils, that
• 12:09
  convened in expanded sessions known as kobaldos
• 12:12
  abiertos. These were open meetings held in council
• 12:16
  chambers or public squares, where broader segments
• 12:20
  of the local population could witness the reading
• 12:22
  of documents and the administration of oaths.
• 12:25
  But who actually participated? This remains a
• 12:30
  matter of historical debate. The documentary
• 12:33
  record suggests that elite Creoles, Americans
• 12:37
  of Spanish descent, were the primary movers.
• 12:41
  Yet in some cases, popular pressure from below,
• 12:44
  including mobilization by artisans, small merchants,
• 12:48
  and even urban crowds played a significant role.
• 12:52
  The precise balance between elite direction and
• 12:55
  popular participation varied from city to city,
• 12:59
  and is often difficult to recover from surviving
• 13:01
  sources. The Juntas also exposed and intensified
• 13:07
  a division that would shape the politics of the
• 13:09
  entire period, the tension between Peninsulares
• 13:12
  and Creolos. Peninsulares were those born in
• 13:17
  Spain. Creolos were Americans of Spanish descent.
• 13:22
  This was not simply a matter of birthplace. It
• 13:27
  was a structural inequality that permeated imperial
• 13:29
  administration. Peninsulares held the vast majority
• 13:34
  of high offices, viceroys, captains general,
• 13:38
  bishops, judges of the audiencias. Criollos were
• 13:43
  systematically excluded from the highest positions
• 13:46
  despite their wealth, education and local prominence.
• 13:49
  The crisis of 1808 did not create this resentment,
• 13:54
  but it gave it a constitutional language. If
• 13:58
  sovereignty had reverted to the people, did that
• 14:01
  not include the American people? And if the American
• 14:05
  people were to be represented, should they not
• 14:07
  be represented by their own? The Council of Regency,
• 14:11
  aware that its authority was crumbling, called
• 14:15
  for a Cortes, a representative assembly, to meet
• 14:18
  at Cadiz in September of 1810. This was a significant
• 14:23
  concession and a significant gamble. It was the
• 14:27
  first time the Spanish monarchy had summoned
• 14:29
  a Cortes that would include American deputies.
• 14:33
  Yet the terms of representation revealed how
• 14:36
  far peninsular elites were from accepting American
• 14:39
  equality. The Americas, with a population in
• 14:43
  the millions, received far fewer deputies than
• 14:46
  the Spanish provinces. The method of election
• 14:50
  was controlled by local authorities who often
• 14:53
  favored peninsula candidates. The American deputies
• 14:57
  who did arrive in Cadiz were articulate, prepared,
• 15:01
  and insistent. They demanded equal representation,
• 15:05
  the abolition of American disabilities, and recognition
• 15:09
  that the American kingdoms were not subordinate
• 15:11
  colonies but constituent parts of the monarchy.
• 15:15
  The Cadiz Cortes convened in September 18 then,
• 15:19
  in a city under siege by French forces. Its opening
• 15:24
  declaration. on September 24th was momentous.
• 15:29
  The Cortes declared itself the repository of
• 15:32
  national sovereignty. This was a revolutionary
• 15:35
  statement in a monarchical context. It meant
• 15:39
  that sovereignty resided not in the person of
• 15:41
  the king, but in the nation represented by the
• 15:44
  Cortes. The king would henceforth rule under
• 15:48
  a constitution, not by divine right alone. For
• 15:53
  Americans, this doctrine had ambiguous implications.
• 15:57
  On one hand, it offered a theoretical basis for
• 16:00
  American equality. If sovereignty derived from
• 16:04
  the nation, and the nation included the Americas,
• 16:07
  then Americans were equal members. On the other
• 16:12
  hand, it was a Spanish body, meeting in Spain,
• 16:16
  dominated by peninsular deputies, that was claiming
• 16:20
  to define the sovereignty of the whole. The Constitution
• 16:24
  of 1812, produced by the Cadiz Cortes, and promulgated
• 16:29
  on March 19th of that year, embodied these tensions.
• 16:33
  It was a remarkable document in many respects.
• 16:36
  It established a constitutional monarchy with
• 16:40
  separation of powers, limited the authority of
• 16:43
  the crown, and affirmed popular sovereignty.
• 16:47
  It applied to both hemispheres, declaring that
• 16:50
  the Spanish nation comprised all Spaniards in
• 16:53
  both the old world and the new. It abolished
• 16:57
  some of the most hated features of the old regime,
• 17:00
  including the Inquisition's judicial authority
• 17:03
  and certain forms of legal privilege. Yet the
• 17:07
  Constitution also preserved significant inequalities,
• 17:10
  and its specific provisions revealed why Americans
• 17:13
  found it both promising and disappointing. The
• 17:17
  document defined the Spanish nation to include
• 17:19
  both hemispheres, which theoretically erased
• 17:22
  the legal distinction between peninsula and American
• 17:26
  territories. But it structured representation
• 17:29
  through a complex system of indirect election
• 17:32
  that favored existing powerholders. Suffrage
• 17:36
  was limited to property -holding males, and American
• 17:39
  representation remained disproportionately small.
• 17:43
  For someone in Caracas or Buenos Aires, the Constitution
• 17:46
  offered the language of equality while perpetuating
• 17:50
  the reality of exclusion. The king's authority
• 17:53
  was limited, but the Cortes that claimed to represent
• 17:56
  the nation was dominated by those who had always
• 17:59
  held power. The reception of the Constitution
• 18:02
  in the Americas was uneven. Some juntas recognized
• 18:06
  it and attempted to implement its provisions.
• 18:10
  Others rejected it as a peninsular imposition.
• 18:14
  In practice, the Constitution could not be enforced
• 18:18
  in territories where local juntas had already
• 18:20
  established de facto autonomy. The Cortes had
• 18:24
  created a framework for a reformed monarchy,
• 18:27
  but it had not solved the problem of who actually
• 18:29
  governed in the Americas. This brings us to the
• 18:33
  central paradox of the period, and perhaps its
• 18:36
  most important insight for understanding what
• 18:39
  followed. Loyalty to Ferdinand VII became the
• 18:43
  language through which autonomous governance
• 18:45
  was justified and expanded. The American hunters
• 18:49
  insisted they were loyal. They organized militias.
• 18:53
  collected taxes, regulated trade and conducted
• 18:57
  diplomatic correspondence, all in the king's
• 19:00
  name. Yet each of these activities was an exercise
• 19:04
  of sovereign power. The longer the king remained
• 19:08
  absent, the more normal this exercise became.
• 19:12
  The more normal it became, the harder it would
• 19:15
  be to surrender. Consider what this meant in
• 19:19
  practical terms. A junta in Buenos Aires. Caracas
• 19:24
  that raised troops, negotiated with foreign merchants,
• 19:28
  and issued currency was doing things that had
• 19:31
  previously been the exclusive prerogative of
• 19:33
  the crown or its appointed viceroy. The officials
• 19:38
  who performed these acts swore loyalty to Ferdinand
• 19:41
  VII, even as they created institutions that would
• 19:44
  outlast his captivity. The oath was sincere for
• 19:48
  many. The institutional creation was also sincere.
• 19:54
  The two were not contradictory in the minds of
• 19:57
  those who performed them. They were complementary.
• 20:01
  The king's absence required temporary measures.
• 20:05
  The temporary measures became permanent habits.
• 20:09
  The experience of self -government during these
• 20:11
  years transformed political expectations in ways
• 20:14
  that are difficult to overstate. Men who had
• 20:18
  served on juntas debated in cabildos abiertos
• 20:22
  and corresponded with other american cities had
• 20:25
  acquired a taste for political participation
• 20:27
  that could not easily be extinguished they had
• 20:31
  also developed networks of alliance and communication
• 20:34
  across provincial boundaries the spanish monarchy
• 20:38
  had never intended to create an american political
• 20:41
  public the crisis of 1808 did so inadvertently
• 20:47
  Yet we must be careful not to treat this as a
• 20:49
  simple story of Creole elites discovering their
• 20:52
  national identity. The political landscape was
• 20:56
  far more complex. Royalism remained a powerful
• 21:01
  and genuinely held position throughout the period,
• 21:04
  and it attracted a remarkably diverse coalition.
• 21:08
  Indigenous communities, particularly in regions
• 21:11
  like Peru and New Spain, often saw the Spanish
• 21:14
  crown as a protector against the abuses of local
• 21:17
  Creole elites. The crown had historically mediated
• 21:22
  disputes over land, labor and tribute. Its absence
• 21:26
  and the rise of Creole -led juntas threatened
• 21:30
  to remove this protective layer. For many indigenous
• 21:34
  people, loyalty to Ferdinand was not naive conservatism.
• 21:38
  It was a calculated defense of their interests
• 21:41
  against those who claimed to speak for the nation.
• 21:45
  Free people of color, Africans and their descendants
• 21:48
  who were not enslaved, also frequently aligned
• 21:51
  with royalism. The colonial order, for all its
• 21:56
  racism, had offered certain legal protections
• 21:58
  and avenues of advancement. Cruel elites, by
• 22:02
  contrast, often represented a more rigid racial
• 22:05
  hierarchy. The prospect of Creole -dominated
• 22:09
  Juntas exercising sovereign power was not necessarily
• 22:13
  liberating for those who feared that liberation
• 22:16
  would mean new forms of exclusion. In some regions,
• 22:20
  Creole elites hesitated to mobilize popular forces
• 22:23
  precisely because they feared the social consequences
• 22:26
  of arming people they intended to exclude from
• 22:29
  full citizenship. Free people of color were aware
• 22:33
  of these calculations and made their own assessments
• 22:36
  of where their security lay. The clergy were
• 22:40
  divided. Some priests and bishops supported the
• 22:44
  untas, seeing in them a defense of Catholic legitimacy
• 22:47
  against French impiety. Others remained loyal
• 22:52
  to the regency or the Cortes, emphasizing the
• 22:55
  traditional hierarchy of the church. Merchants,
• 22:59
  particularly those with strong ties to peninsular
• 23:02
  trade networks, often favored royalism for economic
• 23:06
  reasons. The disruption of established commercial
• 23:10
  relationships threatened their livelihoods. Elites
• 23:14
  themselves were not uniformly separatist. Many
• 23:18
  Creoles sought reform and autonomy within the
• 23:21
  monarchy, not independence outside it. This diversity
• 23:26
  of royalist motivation is essential to understanding
• 23:28
  why the period was so contested and why outcomes
• 23:31
  varied so dramatically across the hemisphere.
• 23:35
  Royalism was not a single ideology. It was a
• 23:39
  default position for many, a positive choice
• 23:42
  for some, and a pragmatic calculation for others.
• 23:46
  The same could be said of the various positions
• 23:49
  that moved toward autonomy and, eventually, independence.
• 23:54
  The restoration of Ferdinand VII in 1814 should
• 23:58
  have resolved the crisis. Loyalists who had governed
• 24:03
  in his name. who had raised armies and written
• 24:06
  constitutions and negotiated with foreign powers
• 24:09
  under the banner of his legitimacy, expected
• 24:12
  recognition of their service, validation of the
• 24:15
  constitution, and restoration of a reformed monarchy
• 24:18
  in which they would have a voice. It did not.
• 24:23
  On May 4th of that year, Ferdinand annulled the
• 24:26
  constitution of 1812 and restored absolutist
• 24:30
  rule. For those who had governed in his name,
• 24:34
  This was a profound betrayal. The king whose
• 24:38
  absence had justified their political experimentation
• 24:41
  now denied the legitimacy of everything they
• 24:44
  had done. He treated them not as loyal servants
• 24:48
  who had preserved his throne, but as rebels who
• 24:51
  had exceeded their authority. The restoration
• 24:54
  thus deepened the very crisis it was meant to
• 24:57
  solve. Men who had been genuine loyalists in
• 25:01
  1810 found themselves labelled as disloyal. in
• 25:05
  1814. Institutions that had been created as temporary
• 25:10
  expedients were now treated as criminal usurpations.
• 25:13
  The political space for loyalist reformism narrowed
• 25:17
  dramatically. Some former royalists accommodated
• 25:21
  themselves to the restored absolutism. Others,
• 25:25
  gradually and unevenly, move toward positions
• 25:28
  that can only be described as independence. This
• 25:32
  was not because they had always secretly desired
• 25:34
  independence. It was because the restoration
• 25:38
  foreclosed the monarchical options they had pursued
• 25:41
  in good faith. By 1814 and 1815, some American
• 25:46
  movements had begun to articulate claims to sovereignty
• 25:49
  that went beyond autonomous governance within
• 25:52
  a monarchical framework. The transition was gradual,
• 25:56
  contested, and geographically uneven. In some
• 26:01
  regions, particularly the Río de la Plata and
• 26:04
  parts of New Granada, Independence was declared
• 26:07
  in the years immediately following the Restoration.
• 26:10
  In others, particularly Peru and parts of New
• 26:14
  Spain, royalist sentiment remained strong for
• 26:17
  years. The wars that followed were not simply
• 26:21
  wars of independence against colonial rule. They
• 26:25
  were civil wars within societies that had been
• 26:27
  fractured by the legitimacy crisis of 1808. The
• 26:31
  Constitution of 1812, despite its annulment,
• 26:34
  left a lasting imprint. It became a reference
• 26:38
  point for later constitutional experiments across
• 26:41
  the Americas. Its language of popular sovereignty,
• 26:45
  its structure of government, its limitations
• 26:48
  on executive power. These would be adapted and
• 26:52
  debated for decades. The Constitution had failed
• 26:56
  in its immediate purpose of preserving a reformed
• 26:59
  Spanish monarchy, but it had succeeded in circulating
• 27:01
  ideas and models that shaped the political futures
• 27:04
  of the hemisphere. What then? Should we understand
• 27:08
  about the origins of Spanish -American independence?
• 27:12
  We should understand that they were not the inevitable
• 27:15
  expression of pre -existing national identities
• 27:18
  waiting to be born. The nations that emerged
• 27:21
  from this period, Argentina, Colombia, Mexico,
• 27:25
  Chile and others, were not latent realities that
• 27:28
  simply needed to be declared into existence.
• 27:32
  They were contingent outcomes of a constitutional
• 27:34
  crisis that forced people to ask fundamental
• 27:37
  questions about the nature of legitimate authority.
• 27:41
  The question that opened this episode, who possesses
• 27:45
  legitimate authority when the king is absent,
• 27:47
  was answered differently in different places.
• 27:51
  In some cities, the answer was the local junta
• 27:54
  acting in the king's name. In others, it was
• 27:59
  the courtes at Cadiz, representing the nation.
• 28:03
  In still others, it was the Council of Regency,
• 28:07
  or the old Audiencias, or the Viceroy if one
• 28:11
  remained in place. Each answer carried implications
• 28:15
  for the political future of the community that
• 28:17
  gave it. The accumulation of these answers, and
• 28:22
  the conflicts between them, gradually transformed
• 28:24
  a monarchical crisis into a revolutionary situation.
• 28:28
  This transformation was not planned. It was not
• 28:33
  the work of a few great men imposing their vision
• 28:36
  on passive masses. It was the product of countless
• 28:40
  decisions by people whose motives we can sometimes
• 28:43
  recover and often cannot, whose choices were
• 28:46
  constrained by circumstances they did not choose,
• 28:49
  and whose understanding of their own actions
• 28:51
  was frequently different from our retrospective
• 28:54
  interpretation. The merchant in Veracruz waiting
• 28:58
  for news from Spain, the indigenous leader in
• 29:02
  Cusco, weighing the promises of creole junters
• 29:05
  against the protections of the old crown the
• 29:09
  free man of color in cartagena calculating where
• 29:12
  his family's security lay the priest in santiago
• 29:16
  torn between his oath to the king and his sympathy
• 29:20
  for reform they confronted questions that had
• 29:23
  no obvious answers participated in institutions
• 29:26
  that had no clear precedent and made choices
• 29:29
  whose consequences they could not foresee The
• 29:33
  fascination of this subject lies not in heroic
• 29:36
  simplicity, but in genuine complexity. We are
• 29:40
  watching a political system of enormous geographical
• 29:43
  extent and constitutional sophistication confront
• 29:46
  a problem it had never anticipated. We are watching
• 29:50
  people improvise solutions using the intellectual
• 29:53
  and institutional materials available to them.
• 29:57
  We are watching loyalty become, under pressure
• 30:00
  of circumstance, something that enabled rather
• 30:03
  than prevented political transformation. And
• 30:07
  we are watching the slow, uneven, contested emergence
• 30:10
  of new forms of sovereignty from the wreckage
• 30:14
  of an old form of legitimacy. What remains uncertain,
• 30:18
  even after generations of scholarship, is the
• 30:21
  precise interior life of many of the actors.
• 30:24
  The documentary record preserves their public
• 30:27
  statements, their legal instruments, their correspondence.
• 30:31
  It preserves less well their private doubts,
• 30:33
  their calculations, their fears. The extent to
• 30:38
  which junta leaders genuinely believed their
• 30:41
  own loyalist rhetoric, or used it strategically,
• 30:44
  or some combination of both, varies by individual
• 30:48
  and maybe unknowable for many. The degree of
• 30:52
  popular participation in junta formation, and
• 30:55
  the social composition of that participation,
• 30:58
  remains debated by historians. The precise ways
• 31:02
  in which indigenous communities understood and
• 31:05
  engaged with constitutional debates are particularly
• 31:07
  difficult to recover, given the biases of the
• 31:10
  sources. What we can say with confidence is that
• 31:14
  the Spanish -American revolutions began as something
• 31:17
  other than what they became. They began as a
• 31:21
  defense of monarchical legitimacy against French
• 31:23
  usurpation. They began with oaths to a captive
• 31:27
  king and claims to govern in his name. They began
• 31:31
  with a constitutional crisis that opened space
• 31:34
  for political experimentation. And that experimentation,
• 31:39
  shaped by war, social conflict, and the restoration
• 31:43
  of absolutism, gradually turned toward sovereignty
• 31:46
  and independence. The journey from 1808 to the
• 31:51
  declarations of independence that followed was
• 31:54
  not inevitable. It was made by human beings responding
• 31:58
  to circumstances they had not chosen. using ideas
• 32:02
  they had inherited and creating outcomes they
• 32:05
  had not fully imagined.