Nationalism and Transnationalism in Spain and Latin America, 1808–1923

Paul Garner, Angel Smith

• Publisher: University of Wales Press
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781783169733
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politik & Internationale Beziehungen
• Subtopic: Nationalismus & Patriotismus

The twin focus of this book is on the importance of the Spanish heritage on nation and state building in nineteenth-century Spanish-speaking Latin America, alongside processes of nation and state building in Spain and Latin America. Rather than concentrating purely on nationalism and national identity, the book explores the linkages that remained or were re-established between Spain and her former colonies; as has increasingly been recognised in recent decades, the nineteenth century world was marked by the rise of the modern nation state, but also by the development of new transnational connections, and this book accounts for these processes within a Hispanic context.

1

The National Road of the Cádiz Cortes: Anticolonialism, Liberalism, Nation and State

------------------------------------------------

MANUEL CHUST

The crisis of 1808, provoked by the granting of the Spanish Crown to Napoleon, resulted in political schism in both the peninsular and American territories of the Monarchy. An uprising of the Spanish people against the Napoleonic troops then led to war. In the political sphere the outcome was a dual power, with on the one hand the institutionalisation of King José I’s rule, and, on the other, the creation of provincial assemblies (juntas), which in September 1808 formed a Junta Central in order to oppose the Napoleonic occupation. However, the adverse course of the war led to the dissolution of this Junta in January 1810 and to the formation of a five-man Regency. It was this institution that signed the decree summoning Cortes (parliament), which met on the Isla de León, close to Cádiz, in September 1810. The unique and revolutionary aspect of these liberal Cortes was that they encompassed, with equal rights, the territories and inhabitants of America and the Philippines and those of the Spanish peninsula and that they therefore comprised both American and Peninsular deputies. Their composition was almost completely unheard of in the history of western constitutionalism, given that they gave a voice to the representatives of territories that had previously been colonies of the Spanish monarchy. Until the last decade at least this fact has been little commented on in the Spanish and American literature on the period. Our contribution to this historiography is therefore to stress their novelty and importance.

The fact that there were both peninsular and American deputies led to the promulgation of a series of liberal decrees, which would establish equal rights between peninsular Spaniards and Americans thereby creating a ‘bi-hemispheric’ nation-state. That is to say, a Hispanic commonwealth was articulated thirty years before the British Commonwealth was formed. These liberal decrees would have a big impact in two areas. On the one hand, they were very important when it came to writing key articles of the Constitution of 1812, such as the formation of local and provincial authorities, which were the pillars of local and provincial power in the new liberal state. On the other, they would subsequently have a lasting impact on American constitutionalism. The 1812 Constitution would come into effect in New Spain from September 1812 and in Peru at the beginning of 1813, with the result that the revolutionary liberal legislation enacted at Cádiz was transported across to the old colonial territories. It is the aim of this chapter to analyse the central aspects of these unique liberal proposals for the construction of the state and nation; most notably the liberals’ conception of the nation, the debate at Cádiz over the national question as applied to America, the issue of rights and liberties, and the promulgation of anticolonial decrees and the application of the liberal principles of the Cádiz deputies to America.

Spanish Liberalism and the National Question in America

The date was 24 September 1810. The deputies had arrived at the theatre on the Island of Léon, near Cádiz, which had been transformed into a large chamber. Thus it was that the much anticipated sessions of the Cortes began. Subsequently, when the Cortes moved to Cádiz they became indissolubly linked with the name of the city. They were classified as ‘general and extraordinary’, and comprised 104 deputies, of whom twenty-nine were American.1 This was made possible because representation had been extended to ‘all the territories’ of the Monarchy, with the result that representatives were drawn from the peninsula, from America and from the Philippines.

That night the deputy for Extremadura, Diego Muñoz Torrero, who was one of the leaders of Spanish liberalism, addressed the chamber and expressed:

how convenient it would be to decree that the general and extraordinary Cortes are constituted legitimately, that sovereignty resides in them, that powers be divided between the legislature, the judiciary and the executive, and that the first act of the Cortes, in exercising its sovereignty, be to renew recognition of the legitimate king of Spain, Fernando VII.

Another liberal deputy from Extremadura, Manuel Luján, then presented the chamber’s secretary a proposal elaborating on Muñoz Torrero’s suggestion. The liberal deputies, representing both the nation’s hemispheres, had put in place a well elaborated plan. The key demand was that the Cortes should recognise, decree and sanction the fact that national sovereignty lay in their hands. In this they were successful, with the Cortes decreeing on the first day that sovereignty lay with the nation and not with the king. Moreover, in its second point the decree went on to affirm that it recognised Fernando VII as king and declared null and void the cessation of the Crown to Napoleon. Such action could not have been taken by an estate-based ancien-régime parliament.

Hence, from the outset the Cortes had established an indissoluble link between sovereignty and the nation. But a debate also began on what kind of national sovereignty and, above all, who belonged to the nation. Representation to these Cortes was very different from those of the past because the American and Philippine territories were integrated into the nation and represented. And in this way the concepts of sovereignty, representation and territory became interlinked, and also tied to a new conception of the nation. This was the singularity of the Hispanic liberal revolution. It was a revolution which stretched across two hemispheres and, as shall be seen, went beyond all the models contemplated by the peninsular liberals. According to the liberals’ philosophical principles it was the nation (based on principles drawn from historicism, from natural law, and from contractualist and scholastic ideas) that demanded the ‘people’ should be sovereign, given that the king had been ‘sequestrated’ and was therefore ‘absent’. As sovereignty had been returned to the nation, it was represented in the Cortes as a whole. But according to classical liberal theory this national sovereignty lay with the deputies of the Cortes.

It was on this basis that the American deputies intervened. Their key concern was that the principle of national sovereignty be applied to America and so they asked, ‘which would be the best way to publish this decree [on national sovereignty] in these territories [that is, America and the Philippines]?’ And they commented on the ‘lack of a system to publish the decrees and laws’. They were to make up close on sixty representatives in the Cortes and in a carefully articulated strategy demanded equality of representation. They were spurred on in this respect by knowledge of the juntera movements which had taken off in the spring of 1810 in America, with the creation, amongst others, of juntas in Caracas, Buenos Aires and Santiago de Chile in April, May and September respectively, along with the insurgent movements that had emerged in this latter month in New Spain.2 The Americans argued that such a decree should not be published if it were not extended to all the territories of the Hispanic Monarchy, including America and the Philippines. Otherwise, it would help discredit the Cortes in the American territories, most especially amongst those who had not sent deputies, like Caracas, Buenos Aires and Santiago de Cuba.

In this way the parliamentary revolution initiated in the Cortes on the Island of León was transferred across to those parts of America that had followed the revolutionary liberal road. As the records of the Cádiz Cortes show, with the exception of those territories mentioned previously, most of the American political, military and ecclesiastic authorities, along with a good part of the inhabitants, had sworn allegiance to the Cortes. But they wanted more. As the petitions they sent in indicate, they demanded equality of rights with European Spaniards, the extension of national sovereignty to the inhabitants of the American territories, and that an amnesty should be granted to all those involved in the ‘unsavoury events that have occurred as a result of conflicts in all the American countries’. Faced with these petitions, the surprise of both liberal and absolutist peninsular deputies was enormous. The deputy for the viceroyalty of New Granada, Mejía Lequerica, asked for the debate to be left to the private (cerrado) sessions of the Cortes, given the likely reaction of the peninsular deputies and the enormous significance of the issue. The peninsular liberals saw the demands as inopportune given that the city of Cádiz was under siege from French troops and that debates had to be undertaken, and measures and decrees approved, as soon as possible.

Nevertheless, the three key proposals were discussed through to 14 October 1810. The American deputies were not only able to make their presence felt, but also benefit from the rights granted the deputies from the first day of the session. They argued that as America was for the first time represented in a liberal Cortes it should be included in any decrees emanating from the Cortes, and that this right should also be recognised by decree. Hence, the American question was put on the table from the outset. In order to break the deadlock three influential American deputies, José Mejía Lequerica, Vicente Morales Duárez and Ramón Power, from Quito, Lima and Puerto Rico respectively, elaborated a decree which was accepted by the peninsular deputies.3 With great skill the American deputies had achieved a political settlement, without precedent in the Spanish Monarchy, which assured their representation. Spain and America would have equal rights within the framework of a parliamentary monarchy. As the decree, published on 15 October 1810, stated:4

The general and extraordinary Cortes confirm and sanction the unquestionable concept that the Spanish dominions in both hemispheres form part of the single and only Monarchy, the single and only nation, and one single family, and that the inhabitants from its European and overseas dominions have the same rights of those of the peninsula, it being the work of the Cortes to deal at an opportune time, and with special interest, all matters that can contribute to the happiness of the overseas inhabitants, and also the number and form which in the future the national representation of both hemispheres will take. The Cortes also order that from the moment in which those overseas territories in which there have been commotions adequately recognise the legitimate sovereign authority of the motherland, what improperly occurred in them should be forgotten, while recognising the rights of third parties.

And yet this integration of the American colonies into the metropolitan nation would not be so certain as to result in becoming ‘unquestionable’, that is to say, it was not to be above doubt, debate and argument. The American deputies had taken the first step in overcoming the reluctance of some peninsular deputies, who were willing to sanction decrees regarding America without their presence, and they were successful in ensuring that the discussion on national representation, that is the national question as it affected America, take place before the debates on the constitution. But when it would be ‘opportune’ to discuss the matter further was open to question.

In mid-December 1810 the situation was dramatic, with the Island of León, the seat of the Cortes, expecting a French assault at any moment. The deputies were debating the issue of whether to move to Cádiz, with little alternative. Although the danger of a cholera epidemic was receding, bombs and shells were beginning to strike the town. In this context, on 16 December the American deputies felt the time had arrived once again to discuss the American question. A surprising intervention preceded this debate. The Peruvian, Inca Yupanqui, was the first and only deputy to demand rights for indigenous Indians. He did this as an indigenous Indian himself, putting his ethnic above his national identity. There was hardly any debate, with all the peninsular liberals giving him their support. His proposal was not given the necessary approval by the Cortes to be legislated on, but the testament of his words remain:5

A people who oppress another people cannot be free. Your Majesty can touch with his hands this awful truth. Napoleon, the tyrant of Europe, his slave, wants to brand with his iron generous Spain. Spain, which bravely resists, does not see the Lord’s finger, and does not know that she is being punished because of the three centuries during which she made her innocent brothers suffer.

As an Inca, an Indian and an American, I offer Your Majesty a very instructive lesson. Apply it and you will receive very beneficial and learned instruction. Can Your Majesty deny such clear truths? Will you be insensitive to the demands and concerns of your European and American subjects? Will you close your eyes and not see the path lit up for Your Majesty’s salvation? That cannot happen. I expect to be comforted by your religious principles and enlightened policies, manifested in your sovereign deliberations.

After Inca Yupanqui’s ringing words the American representatives put forward eleven anticolonial pro-autonomy demands, which had not been included in the decree of 15 October 1810. These were, fair proportional representation in the chamber; freedom of worship and the freedom to manufacture all goods previously prohibited; the freedom to import and export all goods from any part of Spain, from allies and from all American ports, in either national or foreign ships; the freedom to trade with all Spain’s possession in America and Asia and the abolition of trade privileges; the freedom of all ports in America and the Philippines to trade with all ports in Asia; the abolition of all monopolies owned by the state and by individuals; freedom to mine for mercury in America; equality of rights between Americans, Spaniards and Indians to occupy any political, ecclesiastical or military post; the occupation of half the posts in each of the territories of America by natives of that kingdom; the creation of consultative committees in America to elect representatives amongst the residents of a locality; and the re-establishment of the Jesuits in America.6

The cries of the astonished peninsular deputies echoed around the chamber. In the decree of 15 October the Americans’ equality of rights had been proclaimed and they now feared nothing would satisfy them. The meeting of the Cortes had allowed ‘American’ deputies from throughout the continent to meet. And for the first time they had enjoyed the unique and potentially revolutionary opportunity to get to know the situation throughout the continent and to elaborate common anticolonial economic and political demands. That is, they could now adopt an American perspective within the bounds of the Hispanic Monarchy and also elaborate a liberal strategy to overthrow the Old Order in America. And the forum was provided by the Cortes, a ‘Spanish’ parliament in which the America question became one of the ‘national questions’ facing the Monarchy. The peninsular representatives found this idea totally surprising. The American deputies had taken a revolutionary path, but they rejected insurrection and opted for autonomy within the Spanish Monarchy.

The debate on these demands began on 1 January 1811 and surprisingly it continued, despite the protests of the peninsular deputies, through to 1 February. It was one of the key questions debated in the Cortes, not only because of the time dedicated to it, but also because the autonomist cause was, as a result, seriously damaged. On 9 January 1811 the secretary of the chamber read out the first proposal:7

Consequent upon the decree of 15 October, it is declared that the national representation of the provinces, cities, towns and other places of the continent of America, its islands, and the Philippines… be they Spaniards, Indians or the sons of both, will be of the same order and form (while proportional to their numbers), as the naturals of the provinces, towns and other places of the peninsula and islands of European Spain.

The peninsular deputies could not oppose this based on philosophical principles as they would then contradict the decree they had sanctioned on the first day of the Cortes. The elaboration of the doctrine of ‘national sovereignty’ in order to overcome the Absolutist Monarchy came with the price; that it had to be defined. And as the peninsular deputies realised, the translation of the decree of 15 October into an electoral law raised a problem. On current calculations America had about 15 ...