Cadiz Constitution of 1812

What if the Cadiz Constitution was implemented in 1812 that promised a constitutional monarchy, universal male suffrage, national sovereignty, freedom of speech, land reform and free enterprise. Would it lose its overseas empire if citizenship included indigenous people from anywhere in the empire that would be allowed to vote? If these reforms actually went through and people didn't oppose, would the country industrialize and modernize and become richer than it actually is today? Would Spain's colonial empire expand? How long would it be until the independence of Spain's colonies? Would Spain's colonies be richer or poorer as well?

(Sorry, I had to change this post. It was originally 'What if France was still a Catholic country? if it were to be like Austria or Spain'. It might offend people and I might get banned again)
 
Last edited:
The premise of this thread explicitly states that Catholicism = Formula for a Better Nation.

This despite the fact that Catholicism isn't the same as Magic, or for detractors, Dark Magic. The preponderance of Catholicsm does not make countries magically better or worse; there are, and always will be, other factors.
 
The premise of this thread explicitly states that Catholicism = Formula for a Better Nation.

This despite the fact that Catholicism isn't the same as Magic, or for detractors, Dark Magic. The preponderance of Catholicsm does not make countries magically better or worse; there are, and always will be, other factors.

I was only asking if France would change at all if it was still a Catholic nation. I wasn't asking if France would be a better nation. I never asked that.
 
I was only asking if France would change at all if it was still a Catholic nation. I wasn't asking if France would be a better nation. I never asked that.

If that's the case, then France would be similar in some respects to Austria and Spain, but not all of them. If the French Revolution is butterflied away by having a King of France who is not an incompetent buffoon, then France would reform as a Constitutional Monarchy where the King keeps his Gallicanist powers over the Church.

A similar movement, Febronianism, also existed in Germany, so perhaps if France stays Catholic, we might actually see a more decentralized Catholic Church?
 
Hey wait a second did this say something else five minutes ago?:confused:
Anyway to answer your (new) question. The Cadiz Constitution probably would not be extended to the colonies. When it was briefly reinstated during the Carlist war (troops essentially forced the Queen Regent to sign a proclamation doing so at gunpoint) even the liberals refused to seat Cubans sent to represent the island in the Cortes.
 
Anyway to answer your (new) question. The Cadiz Constitution probably would not be extended to the colonies. When it was briefly reinstated during the Carlist war (troops essentially forced the Queen Regent to sign a proclamation doing so at gunpoint) even the liberals refused to seat Cubans sent to represent the island in the Cortes.

But what if they did allow people from the colonies to be represented in the Cortes and extend civil rights. How would that change things?
 
This used to be a completely different OP.

But, and talking about the Cadiz Constitution of 1812... well, I don't know much about that particular document.

I do know that by 1812 Spain was occupied by French troops and most of its overseas empire was already in open revolt.

So you need a POD to have it happen either before the Napoleonic invasion or to butterfly away the invasion - while at the same time causing enough upheaval to craft such a constitution without triggering a civil war.
Good luck with that.
 
But what if they did allow people from the colonies to be represented in the Cortes and extend civil rights. How would that change things?

It depends on who counts as represented. In Cuba at the time there were distinct social classes. Are only Creoles represented, or is it extended to Mestizos, or (this would be ASB) even the emancipados (freed African slaves). I still think you need a major POD for people in the empire to be represented in the Spanish Cortes, since even the liberals feared it would inevitably lead toward independence.
 
It depends on who counts as represented. In Cuba at the time there were distinct social classes. Are only Creoles represented, or is it extended to Mestizos, or (this would be ASB) even the emancipados (freed African slaves). I still think you need a major POD for people in the empire to be represented in the Spanish Cortes, since even the liberals feared it would inevitably toward independence.

The Criollos would get representation in the Cortes but suffrage is extended only to mestizos and indigenous people. The black people would probably get their right to citizenship much later possibly in 1863 since it was never mentioned in the constitution. They would still have civil rights but not become citizens.
 
The Criollos would get representation in the Cortes but suffrage is extended only to mestizos and indigenous people. The black people would probably get their right to citizenship much later possibly in 1863 since it was never mentioned in the constitution. They would still have civil rights but not become citizens.

Hold on, I am confused. Are you saying the creoles (criollos) would get to vote and be elected to the Cortes but the mestizos and indigenous only get to vote but not serve in the Cortes?
Also i don't see how the emancipados could get civil rights in the early 1800s not with the prevalent racism on the island and the fact that the economy was still based on slave plantations.
 
Hold on, I am confused. Are you saying the creoles (criollos) would get to vote and be elected to the Cortes but the mestizos and indigenous only get to vote but not serve in the Cortes?
Also i don't see how the emancipados could get civil rights in the early 1800s not with the prevalent racism on the island and the fact that the economy was still based on slave plantations.

Yes, that is what I said. The constitution explicitly provided free blacks and mulatos with civil rights but forbade them citizenship. They only wanted peninsulares and criollos to have political power. Also you should answer the rest of my question.
 
I am aware the constitution granted citizenship to freed Africans. I was arguing that just because it said so on paper doesn't mean it gets enforced in practice. After the Civil War the United States granted citizenship to African-Americans but they did not get to exercise their rights until a hundred years later. So, I find it are to believe the freed Africans would be treated better in the early 1800s in the Spanish colonies. I also doubt colonial representation could be implemented in such a way to prevent the wars for independence. The Spanish government was never going to let the colonies have a majority in the Cortes despite the fact they contained far more people than Spain itself did.
 
I am aware the constitution granted citizenship to freed Africans. I was arguing that just because it said so on paper doesn't mean it gets enforced in practice. After the Civil War the United States granted citizenship to African-Americans but they did not get to exercise their rights until a hundred years later. So, I find it are to believe the freed Africans would be treated better in the early 1800s in the Spanish colonies. I also doubt colonial representation could be implemented in such a way to prevent the wars for independence. The Spanish government was never going to let the colonies have a majority in the Cortes despite the fact they contained far more people than Spain itself did.

So your saying that giving representation to people living in the colonies abroad and civil rights can't prevent such wars of independence? Why would that be? Even with reforms, would Spain's colonial empire exist much longer? I also find it hard it to believe that Africans would be treated better in the early 1800s. That gives me a lot of questions.
 
Reforms could work, just not in 1812. Napoleon is going to be defeated and when he does Fernando VII is going to be back in power. There is no way he is going to accept the constitution and it is not like killing him off would help. His brother Don Carlos was even more reactionary than Fernando (which is saying something). Additionally there already several large revolts against Spanish rule at this point, and with Spain devastated from the Peninsular War, it is no way in good shape to retain its colonial empire.
 
To the question about colonial representation, yes the colonies were to be represented, but I believe their votes were worth less. Also suffrage was extended to all social classes. The problem is though the colony of Rio Plata was lost due to an escalation of lack of authority, New Granada and Peru due to Bolivar, and New Spain because the liberals took over in Spain.

Rio Plata and New Granada's fall is hard to prevent, but Peru and New Spain are easy. For Peru just have Bolivar's invasion fail like all the others and have the Spanish negotiate a peace with Bolivar. For New Spain prevent the liberal take over of Spain and New Spain is fine as OTL when the revolutionaries were about to be crushed the liberal take over in Spain caused a conservative backlash in New Spain. So the Constitution of 1812 wouldn't affect the colonies so much as Spain, at least initially.
 
Top