It is a sobering thought, as 2010 inexorably draws nearer, that most of the major Spanish American countries are planning lavish celebrations to mark the bicentenaries of premature bids for independence which, with the arguable exception of the 25 de Mayo events in Buenos Aires, hindered rather than helped the creation of independent republics. The case of Ecuador is particularly poignant for the country's national day commemorates the ‘Quito revolution’ of 10 August 1809, the clear aim of which, as Jaime O. Rodríguez explains, was not to secure independence but, rather, to pledge fidelity to the captive Ferdinand VII. Although it is true that the decision of the city's cabildo abierto to establish a governing junta in the king's name was preceded by a period of tension between peninsular and creole factions within the urban elite, it was only the violent reaction to it of the hardline viceroy of Peru, Fernando de Abascal (1806–1816), already in control of the rival city of Guayaquil (the entire province had been transferred from the viceroyalty of New Granada to that of Peru in 1803) that created the myth that the quiteños were aiming to secure independence. The outcome was a brutal repression, which included the sacking of the city by black soldiers of the Royal Regiment of Lima, severe judicial sanctions and, in August 1810, the slaughter of many of the leaders of the 1809 movement in response to an attempt by the citizens to free prisoners. Throughout these tense twelve months, other towns and cities in the presidency of Quito – Cuenca, Loja and particularly Guayaquil – showed absolutely no inclination to come out in support of the quiteños. Following the intervention of the aged president of Quito, the Conde de Ruiz Castilla, in the aftermath of the massacre, it was agreed that the Peruvian troops would withdraw. The arrival in September of the commissioner of the Council of Regency, Carlos Montúfar, further complicated the situation in Quito, however, as he agreed to establish a ‘Junta Superior de Gobierno’, answerable to the Council of Regency but autonomous from the viceregal authorities in both Santa Fé and Lima. The predictable outcome was the refusal of other provinces of the presidency, notably Cuenca, to recognise the authority of Quito, although a degree of stability was restored in the region in late-1812, as a new president, Toribio Montes, issued pardons and arranged elections for both city councils and deputies to the Cortes, as prescribed by the 1812 constitution of Cádiz.

Most general histories of Spanish American Independence – including Rodriguez's The Independence of Spanish America (CUP, 1998) – allow subsequent events in the future Ecuador to virtually disappear from their radar until 9 October 1820, when the civic and military leaders of the port city of Guayaquil, weary of the burden of wartime taxation and unconvinced that the restoration earlier that year of the 1812 constitution would be permanent, declared for independence. On this occasion the viceroy of Peru, Joaquín de Pezuela (1816–1821), preoccupied with the landing of José de San Martín's army south of Lima in the previous month, was powerless to intervene, and the combination of persuasion and the threat of force convinced other cities in the region – Cuenca, Machaci, Latacunga and Riobamba – to follow the lead of Guayaquil. However, the city of Quito itself remained staunchly royalist on this occasion, less for love of Spain than for fear of losing primacy in the region, and its forces retook Cuenca in December, thereby temporarily dividing the kingdom into a royalist sierra and an independent coastal region. The pragmatic solution to this situation of civil war was provided abruptly in 1822 by the Colombian armies of Simón Bolívar – who was already committed since the meeting of the Congress of Cúcuta in 1821 to the incorporation of the entire territory of the viceroyalty of New Granada into Gran Colombia – following the victory of José Antonio de Sucre over the royalists at Pichincha on 24 May 1822. On 31 July, four days after the historic meeting between Bolívar and San Martín in Guayaquil, the city's authorities recognised reality by voting to join Colombia. Eight years later the ‘conquered people’, as Rodríguez describes them, of the former kingdom of Quito converted the region into ‘a new nation, not with its historic name of Quito, but with the artificial name that it had been given by its conquerors: Ecuador’ (p. 186).

As might be expected of a native Ecuadorian who has been publishing on Spanish American independence for more than 30 years (his influential The Emergence of Spanish America: Vicente Rocafuerte and Spanish Americanism, 1808–1832 (University of California Press) which appeared in 1975), Professor Rodríguez writes fluently and with authority. The present volume builds upon his previous scholarship – two of its five substantive chapters (two and four) are revised versions of earlier articles – but also embraces the fruits of original research, particularly in chapter three, ‘Los indígenas y la nueva política’. This analyses the repercussions in the kingdom of Quito of the articles in the 1812 constitution that declared the equality of all the inhabitants of America, other than those of African descent, with those of peninsular Spain, demonstrating how indigenous communities skilfully defended their interests, and succeeded, for example, in persuading President Montes to abolish definitively the tribute in 1814. Similarly, many invoked their status as ‘Spanish citizens’ to refuse to continue providing personal service or undertake forced work.

In conclusion, this is a stimulating monograph, a model of how the specific details of one region's transition from colonialism to independence need to be contextualised within a global context, without resort to exaggerated notions of national identity. One fears that the next few years will generate many works of inferior quality as part of the bicentennial celebrations.