| Revision as of 23:58, 28 November 2012 view sourceEdward321 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users36,434 edits rv to better version← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:55, 29 November 2012 view source Santos30 (talk | contribs)1,312 edits →Description: recover referenced information.Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| With the imprisonment of Ferdinand VII in Spain during the ] and the absence of a legitimate successor, the criterion was used to justify ]. The Junta of Seville had no authority to send or appoint viceroys in America, but Americans had instead the same rights as Spaniards to govern themselves as the rightful king was absent.<ref name="Luna"/> | With the imprisonment of Ferdinand VII in Spain during the ] and the absence of a legitimate successor, the criterion was used to justify ]. The Junta of Seville had no authority to send or appoint viceroys in America, but Americans had instead the same rights as Spaniards to govern themselves as the rightful king was absent.<ref name="Luna"/> | ||
| The principle was employed by many independentist movements in South America of that time, such as the ] or the ]. |
The principle was employed by many independentist movements in South America of that time, such as the ] or the ]. | ||
| The Creoles claimed that their political connection was with the ] and not with the nation of ], and with the throne vacant recover their sovereignty. The new sovereign entities that are considered heirs to the sovereignty of the crown of Castile rejected decisions made without their consent. <ref> En el caso hispanoamericano, ante la pretensión de lograr el reconocimineto de la metrópolis como autoridad sustituta del monarca, los criollos alegaban que su vínculo político era con la monarquía castellana y no con la nación española, y que, vacante el trono reasumían la soberanía. Las nuevas entidades soberanas que se consideraban herederas de la soberanía de la corona castellana los considerados organismos soberanos representativos de las ciudades y luego provincias o Estados iberoamericanos rechazaron decisiones tomadas sin su consentimiento.</ref> | |||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 05:55, 29 November 2012
The Retroversion of the sovereignty to the people, which challenged the legitimacy of the colonial authorities, was the principle underlying the Spanish American Independence processes.
In 1808, the Spanish King Ferdinand VII had been imprisoned by the Napoleonic Empire and subsequently replaced by Joseph Bonaparte. In Spain, resistant governing juntas were formed, claiming sovereignty in the absence of the legitimate King. The principle of retroversion of sovereignty provided that, in such a case, sovereignty immediately returns to the peoples, who have a right to appoint new authorities. Following the 1810 disbanding of the central governing Supreme Central and Governing Junta of the Kingdom, Spanish American peoples assumed, in turn, their right to appoint new local authorities.
Thus, in both Spain and Spanish America, this principle was a precedecessor to the concept of popular sovereignty, currently expressed in most constitutional systems throughout the world, whereby the people delegate governmental functions in their leaders while retaining the actual sovereignty.
Description
The principle of retroversion of sovereignty was premised on the basis that the Spanish territories in America were a personal possession of the king of Spain, and not a colony of Spain. Only the king could rule over them, either directly or through viceroys appointed by himself. This principle already existed, and justified the fact that Spain and Spanish America had different laws. Scholars of the Laws of the Indies had argued that they were two different realms, united under one same crown.
With the imprisonment of Ferdinand VII in Spain during the Peninsular war and the absence of a legitimate successor, the criterion was used to justify self-government. The Junta of Seville had no authority to send or appoint viceroys in America, but Americans had instead the same rights as Spaniards to govern themselves as the rightful king was absent.
The principle was employed by many independentist movements in South America of that time, such as the Chuquisaca Revolution or the May Revolution.
The Creoles claimed that their political connection was with the Crown of Castile and not with the nation of Spain, and with the throne vacant recover their sovereignty. The new sovereign entities that are considered heirs to the sovereignty of the crown of Castile rejected decisions made without their consent.
See also
Footnotes
- Nuevas perspectivas en la Historia de la Revolución de Mayo Template:Es
- ^ Luna, Félix (March 2001). «La fórmula de la Revolución», Grandes protagonistas de la historia argentina: Juan José Castelli (in spanish). Buenos Aires: Editorial Planeta, pp. 51. ISBN 950-49-0656-7.
- Fundamentos intelectuales y políticos de las independencias. José Carlos Chiaramonte 2010 En el caso hispanoamericano, ante la pretensión de lograr el reconocimineto de la metrópolis como autoridad sustituta del monarca, los criollos alegaban que su vínculo político era con la monarquía castellana y no con la nación española, y que, vacante el trono reasumían la soberanía. Las nuevas entidades soberanas que se consideraban herederas de la soberanía de la corona castellana los considerados organismos soberanos representativos de las ciudades y luego provincias o Estados iberoamericanos rechazaron decisiones tomadas sin su consentimiento.
| Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata | ||
|---|---|---|
| Regions | .svg){kind=small} | |
| Political ideas | ||
| Military conflicts | ||
| Autonomist rebellions | ||
| Dissolution | ||