Why didn't The Philippines declare independence from Spain?

The Spanish Americas succeeded in their independence struggle in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars and Spanish internal turmoil. Why didn't The Philippines follow suit?
 
Because there weren´t enough economic-social factors around pushing for an independence movement?;):rolleyes::D

I seriously think it´s because it wasn´t developed enough for ideologies. The ruling class was happy with ruling and not big enough anyway to support it self on it´s own as well as there being many areas de facto independent.
 
The Spanish Americas succeeded in their independence struggle in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars and Spanish internal turmoil. Why didn't The Philippines follow suit?

well, they did declare independence at the end of the century.

A quick reading of the wikipedia article on Phillipeno history does reveal this little tidbit, though:

t the lower levels of administration, the Spanish built on traditional village organization by co-opting local leaders. This system of indirect rule helped create a Filipino upper class, called the principalia, who had local wealth, high status, and other privileges. This perpetuated an oligarchic system of local control. Among the most significant changes under Spanish rule was that the Filipino idea of communal use and ownership of land was replaced with the concept of private ownership and the conferring of titles on members of the principalia.[17]

Assuming this is correct, then Spain only practiced direct rule over a few areas such as Manila, and left much of the colony's workings to the local rulers. In that case, Spain has almost no effective control over the average Phillipeno's day to day life. Without that presence, and with the local oligarchs backing the Spanish (why bite the hand that feeds you?), there is little reason to rebel, and little ability to carry said rebellion to a successful conclusion. Finally, not all colonies spontaneously rebel whenever the home country is in peril or turmoil. It does happen, but is often as not just one disaffected tribal group or region. Perhaps a mix of Spanish and local pressure kept the rebellions simmering.

I doubt that is the entire answer, but does that help?
 
The rebellions in South America were royalist in their beginnigs; the people theres didn´t want to recognize the french-puppet government and like the Spanish mainland, made "Juntas" in the name of Fernando VII and the "legitimate" Spain.
 
The rebellions in South America were royalist in their beginnigs; the people theres didn´t want to recognize the french-puppet government and like the Spanish mainland, made "Juntas" in the name of Fernando VII and the "legitimate" Spain.

True, but I always had the impression that the declaration for fernando was a front for the independence movement. For example, In many cases, the transition from royalists to freedom fighters was rather quick. declaring for Fernando might gain his "blessing" for their endeavour, while setting the stage for real independence.
 
Remember this, though - the Phillipines was a colony of another colony of Spain - New Spain (aka México). Could that have played a factor?
 
Yes after Mexico's independence the Philippines went to Spanish direct control. This possibly improved a bit the conditions of the locals.

In any case, I think this is like asking why India didn't revolt in 1775. Because it is in a different continent, under a different regime, and very much more isolated from the mainland than its American counterparts. Did the Filipinos even know that the French had invaded Spain at all?
 
In any case, I think this is like asking why India didn't revolt in 1775. Because it is in a different continent, under a different regime, and very much more isolated from the mainland than its American counterparts. Did the Filipinos even know that the French had invaded Spain at all?

What is this "India" you are talking about in 1775?
 
Top