Bourbon Reforms
The Bourbon Reforms (Spanish: Reformismo borbónico, lit. 'Borbonic reformism') consisted of political and economic changes promulgated by the Spanish Crown under various kings of the House of Bourbon, mainly in the 18th century. The beginning of the new Crown's power with clear lines of authority to officials contrasted to the complex system of government that evolved under the Habsburg monarchs.[1] For example, the crown pursued state predominance over the Catholic Church, pushed economic reforms, and placed power solely into the hands of civil officials.[2]
See also: Enlightenment in Spain and Spanish American Enlightenment
The reforms resulted in significant restructuring of administrative structure and personnel.[3] The reforms were intended to stimulate manufacturing and technology to modernise Spain. In Spanish America, the reforms were designed to make the administration more efficient and to promote its economic, commercial and fiscal development. When looking at the material effects of how the Bourbon Reforms aimed to change the relationship between the Spanish American colonies and the Crown, it can be said that the reforms functionally aimed to transform juridically semi-autonomous groups into proper colonies. Specifically, the reforms sought to increase commercial agriculture and mining and increase trade. The system was intended to be much more hierarchal, forcing the colonies to become more dependent on Spain and serve as a market for their manufactured goods. The crown ordered these changes in hopes that it would have a positive effect on the economy of Spain.[2] Furthermore, the Bourbon Reforms were intended to limit the power of Criollos and re-establish peninsular supremacy over the colonies.[4]
The reforms achieved mixed results administratively but succeeded in alienating the local elites of the Americas (who called themselves Criollos) and eventually led to the independence of all overseas dominions of the Spanish crown.[5] This is not to say that a clean and straight line can be drawn from the Bourbon reforms to the movements for Independence, but rather that the period of unrest that came in the wake of the reforms helped encourage the conditions necessary for local riots, and eventually revolts.
End of Habsburg era[edit]
At the end of the 17th century, Spain was an ailing empire, facing declining revenues and the loss of military power, ruled by a weak king, Charles II, who left no successor. Even before his death in 1700, the European powers were already positioning themselves to see which noble house would succeed in placing someone on the Spanish throne and thereby gain its vast empire. Louis XIV of France asked for and received the Pope's consent for his grandson, Philip of Anjou, a great-nephew of Charles, to take the throne. On his deathbed, Charles willed the crown to the French-born successor, but an international conflict ensued, known as the War of the Spanish Succession, which lasted from 1702 to 1713 and pitted Portugal, England, and other European countries against the French House of Bourbon.[6]
Effects[edit]
The Bourbon reforms succeeded in raising revenue and increasing silver production in Spanish America. While the changes in tax collection and trade policy had a significant impact on the economic success of the colonies, the domestic industries suffered under the Bourbon reforms. Changes such as the removal of taxes on Spanish wine and the blocking of local mechanisms of production was intended to encourage the purchase of Spanish products.[54] During this time as local production suffered, the flow of wealth increasingly moved towards the Criollo and bureaucratic elites and away from the lower classes. While in certain regions, such as Buenos Aires, the reforms led to growth and productivity, in other places, particularly in smaller towns or rural regions, the lack of presence of wealthy Criollo elites and the massive disparities in distribution of wealth led to unrest, which eventually manifested itself in complaints, and eventually riots and revolts.
There are various historical interpretations on the success of the Bourbon reforms. Nevertheless, though the legislation passed by the Bourbons did much to reform the Empire, it was not enough to sustain it. Many of these reforms laid the groundwork of unrest that continued to develop and grow until the movements for independence. However, it is necessary to be wary of reading this history as a linear process in which the Bourbon reforms created an unrest that just grew and grew until finally tensions finally snapped and revolts ignited through Spanish America. For example, although it is true that the militias that were created in this era eventually became the base of independence armies, it does not become a significant issue until a while later. There were a series of riots. However, they generally did not threaten the system in place, they rarely made demands, and they were usually in response to something specific.
It is important when studying the process of these reforms, particularly the economic reforms, that one pays close attention to where the money being generated is going. Much of it went to the creole elites in the cities, and to bureaucratic elites, and to the Spanish treasure in the Americas. Wealth being generated was not being redistributed to lower classes. This coupled with a general increase in regulations and obligations, especially for the indigenous, contributed to a societal foundation that was untenable for the plebeians of colonial Spanish-American society.
The tensions continued to grow and widespread discontent lead to an increasing number of revolts in the Andean region. In the middle of the 18th century, the number of insurrections rose steadily so there were a dozen or more per decade. From 1750 to 1759 there were 11 recorded, while 20 years later the decade of 1770-1779 witnessed more than 20.[55] The following decade, the Rebellion of Túpac Amaru II drew mainly upon the frustrations of the indigenous community but also included black slaves and Criollos.[55] The cross-class alliance was fleeting, and the insurrection was squashed by the Spanish army. The Revolt of the Comuneros, led by a Criollo, presented demands in Bogota that would benefit the Criollos and Indians but it was not successful.[55] The inhabitants of New Spain, especially the peasant class, experienced the oppression of Bourbons but did not turn to revolt in the same way as their southern neighbors. Rising costs of land, disease, crime and agricultural crises increased tensions in New Spain. Perhaps due to the lack of Aztec identity, the circumstances did not produce a united response like that of the Rebellion of Túpac Amaru II and Revolt of the Comuneros. It is important to note that while a threat, the Tupac Amaru II revolt did not intend to overthrow the Spanish crown. Tupac Amaru himself claimed to have been loyal and merely carrying out the King's will.[56] The unrest in the late 18th century was not motivated by the prospect of independence or enlightenment thinking, and often used traditional Spanish law and Catholic theology in its justifications and reasoning.[57] However, it is seen by some scholars as a precursor to the eventual independence of the American colonies.
Not all rebellions were violent. In Venezuela, the movement was essentially an economic protest which the government by its response turned into a rebellion; its social base was among smaller farmers and merchants, many of them criollos, and their cry was ‘long live the King and death to the Vizcayans. Even at its height "the rebellion remained a moderate movement, basically a peaceful protest, led by a man who in no way was in no way a revolutionary." In the end, while the leader was executed, there was limited action and the revolt reduced privileges for the Caracas company. Therefore, while some of the information in this section is essential, it is important to present the example of the Venezuelan revolt to show that not all of the revolts were bloody.[27]