Earlier colonial independence movements?

[Ofaloaf]

Inspired by a game of EU3 where the entire east coast of North America was colonized by 1500, yet rebellions led to no changes at all.


Why did it take until the latter half of the 18th century for the idea to firmly take root in the colonies that they could split off from the Mama Nation back in Europe? Was it the Enlightenment that did it? Lack of competition in the Americas from Frenchmen or Indians after the 1760s? Why didn't some power-hungry Spaniard declare some portion of the Spanish holdings in the Americas independent in the 1500s or 1600s? Why did they all stay relatively loyal for centuries, and how can that be changed?

 

[Dan1988]

Well, the Renaissance produced the Enlightenment. However, mind you, there was already a pre-American Enlightenment-era "colonial" (if you want to call it that) independence movement - in Corsica.

 

[Thande]

In the case of British and French colonies, there were just too few people there before the 1700s to create a viable state if they were cut off from their mother countries.

For the more populous Spanish and Portuguese colonies, there were plenty of native Indian rebellions - and that should tell you why the European colonists didn't rebel, 'cause it was forces from the mother countries that were putting down those rebellions. And, of course, under the status quo the pure-blood European colonists had all sorts of advantages thanks to the limpieza system.

 

[Admiral Brown]

Why didn't some power-hungry Spaniard declare some portion of the Spanish holdings in the Americas independent in the 1500s or 1600s? Why did they all stay relatively loyal for centuries, and how can that be changed?

It could have happened very early, when the Conquerors superiority over the Amerindians was enormous (specially due to the psicological shock). Cortez or Pizarro might have felt themselves as a sort of Omnipotent Leaders given what they had accomplished, and seek to form independent kindoms. There was fear in Spain around 1520 and 1530 that this could happen in Peru or Mexico.

But if it didn't happened early, it just wouldn't have happened, for the reasons Thande stated. And also because by the second half of the XVI century, the Spanish Crown stoped favouring her earliest approach towards colonization, and replaced the rule of brave and charismatic -but rebellious- Conquistadors for the rule of loyal and dull burocratic colonial officials, who were periodically replaced.

 

[Gonzaga]

What about this: in 1640, when Portugal left the Iberian Union, the Spaniards living in São Paulo, not wishing to be under Portuguese rule, offered to Amador Bueno, a paulista farmer whose father was born in Seville, the title of King of São Paulo. They convinced the population there that São Paulo deserved to have its own king, and a mob acclaimed Bueno in the streets. However, he fled to the Monastery of São Bento, saying that he should be loyal to the king of Portugal and, with the help of the monks, convinced the population to give up of this silly idea. What if he had accepted the offer?
Of course, this “Kingdom of São Paulo” is unlikely to survive, but it could really mess the struggle between Portugal and Spain in South America during this period.

 

[Demosthenes]

Inspired by a game of EU3 where the entire east coast of North America was colonized by 1500, yet rebellions led to no changes at all.


Why did it take until the latter half of the 18th century for the idea to firmly take root in the colonies that they could split off from the Mama Nation back in Europe? Was it the Enlightenment that did it? Lack of competition in the Americas from Frenchmen or Indians after the 1760s? Why didn't some power-hungry Spaniard declare some portion of the Spanish holdings in the Americas independent in the 1500s or 1600s? Why did they all stay relatively loyal for centuries, and how can that be changed?

Well, for the American Colonies there was one thing that led to the problems that eventually led to Indpeendance: The French And Indian War. After that war, the British had tons of debt that they forced the colonists (who had actually won the land war) to pay in taxes.
The colonists refused, resulting in the Quartering Act and the closure of the Bay, and they then of course, revolted.