Carlism and the Philippines

Nobody personifies Carlism better in the Philippines than Carlos Maria de la Torre--Photographed here when he was an officer in the Carlist Army.

The Rise and Evolution of Carlism in Spain

Carlism emerged as a potent force in 19th-century Spain due to a dynastic crisis within the Bourbon monarchy. It pitted one branch of the family against another, with supporters of Don Carlos, Count of Molina, challenging the legitimacy of Isabella II's claim to the throne. This initial focus on succession morphed into a broader ideological movement. Carlists championed a return to traditional values, advocating for a strong monarchy, Catholicism as the state religion, and fueros (regional privileges) – particularly appealing in areas like the Basque Country.

This ideology naturally clashed with the prevailing winds of change. As Spain grappled with economic hardship following the loss of its American colonies, liberals and progressives advocated for reforms, including restrictions on the Church's power and the secularization of its vast landholdings. This directly threatened Carlism's vision of a society steeped in Catholic tradition.

The tension culminated in the First Carlist War (1833-1840), where the military – a pillar of the Spanish state – became a battleground for competing loyalties. The Carlist forces, often drawing support from rural and conservative areas, challenged the government's authority.

However, Carlism wasn't a monolithic movement. The Glorious Revolution of 1868, which ultimately failed to establish a lasting Carlist monarchy, showcased this internal diversity. While some Carlists remained staunchly traditionalist, figures like Carlo Maria de la Torre, appointed Governor-General of the Philippines, reflected a more liberal wing within the movement. This faction sought to reconcile Carlist ideals with a degree of social and political reform.

In essence, Carlism's legacy lies not just in its challenge to the throne but in its encapsulation of the ideological struggles that defined 19th-century Spain. It was a movement that grappled with issues of tradition, modernity, and the role of the Church in a rapidly changing world.

The Philippines' Reaction to Carlist Spain

The 1850s witnessed a burgeoning Manila colonial society yearning for assimilation rather than mere similarity with Spain. The Catholic Church, as ever, loomed large in the background. News from Spain indicated that Carlist politicians and army officers were defending traditional Spanish faith. This created a state of uncertainty in the Philippines, with citizens, especially the Peninsulares (Spanish-born residents), questioning the loyalty of their fellow Spaniards in the colonial administration regarding the Carlist cause.

Meanwhile, the other classes, particularly the mestizos (of Chinese or other Eurasian descent), were more concerned with establishing a stable economic base. Land and education were their primary concerns. Land ownership, renting, and managing friar lands became a common endeavor for this emerging class. Sending their children to study abroad was a popular trend among the newly wealthy.

Liberal Ideas from Two Directions

Liberal ideas flowed into the Philippines from two directions. From the Americas came the ideals of the Enlightenment, revolutions, and individual rights. This was mainly due to the influence of the once-magnificent trade route that stretched to the Pacific. It is not surprising that some of the early expressions of freedom and independence in the islands were inspired by creoles (Spanish-born people of American descent) and Spaniards of Mexican birth who settled in Manila in the early 19th century.

Finally, after the independence of many Latin American colonies and the subsequent opening of the Suez Canal, liberal ideas poured in from Europe. During this time, Spain was embroiled in a series of conflicts, including the Peninsular War and the Carlist Wars.

The Arrival of Carlos de la Torre and the Stirring of Filipino Identity

When Carlos de la Torre arrived in the Philippines to assume the post of Governor-General, the stage was set for either development or disaster.

Years earlier, during the Peninsular War, Spain had staged a major public relations stunt for the colonies. The crown granted instant Spanish citizenship to all citizens of the empire, regardless of race or ethnicity. However, the meaning of citizenship on paper remained unclear. So it was not surprising that when De la Torre arrived in the country, the cynical colonial society initially expressed reservations upon hearing about the installation of a liberal government. But when de la Torre began to implement his policies, development came in the sense that the new liberal atmosphere allowed the Filipino identity to begin asserting itself. Filipinos began to express more what it meant to be called a Filipino.

The Church and the Seeds of Social Conflict

The Filipino clergy's advocacy for secularization within the Catholic Church intertwined with broader socio-economic tensions in 19th-century Philippines. This period saw a clash between the secular clergy, mainly composed of criollos and native Filipinos, and the regular clergy represented by the friars. At the heart of this conflict was the issue of land ownership and control.

The friars, part of the regular clergy, held significant sway over numerous parishes and agricultural estates, including those acquired from the secular clergy. The potential privatization of friar lands in Spain further exacerbated these tensions. This move was perceived as an effort to consolidate Spanish control over the Church's economic power, deepening the divide between the two factions within the clergy.

One figure worth mentioning in this event was none other than Fr. Jose Burgos -- With his "kastila" features and creole background, Burgos emerged as a central figure in this struggle. His intellectual prowess and advocacy for the native clergy's rights echoed broader sentiments of social and political upheaval. In many ways, Burgos resembled Padre Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla of Mexico, who led the Mexican Cry of Independence. One big reason for the church and the state to label him as the colony's perennial agitator.

Burgos's writings and pamphlets, challenging the status quo and advocating for indigenous rights within the Church, became symbolic of the larger movement for change. His actions were perceived as subversive by colonial authorities, who sought to label him as a "Carlist" to diminish his influence. However, Burgos's legacy transcended such labels; he was reshaping the discourse on what it meant to be a true son of Filipinas, challenging entrenched power structures and advocating for a more equitable society.

Thus, the conflict within the Catholic Church over secularization intertwined with broader social and economic issues, highlighting the complexities of colonial rule and indigenous resistance in 19th-century Philippines.

Disaster: The GOMBURZA and the Repercussions of Change

The "disaster" referred to in this article manifests in the tragic fate of the GOMBURZA (Padres Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora) and countless others who suffered due to the conservative backlash that followed the Carlist failure in Spain. The liberal policies implemented by Governor-General Carlos Maria de la Torre, which resonated with Filipino aspirations for reform, were abruptly reversed.

The restoration of a conservative government in Spain led to the dismantling of some of de la Torre's liberal policies. This included measures aimed at secularization within the Church, which had clashed with the interests of the powerful friars.

Desperate to find scapegoats for the Cavite Mutiny – a localized incident with economic roots – the Spanish authorities accused the GOMBURZA of masterminding a wider rebellion fueled by liberalism.

Carlist Triumph?

The execution of GOMBURZA in 1872 resonated deeply within Philippine history as a stark illustration of colonial injustice. This event not only intensified anti-colonial sentiments but also ignited the flames of Philippine nationalism. However, beneath these significant events lies the undeniable reality that Spanish militarism, traditional values, and Catholicism—advocated by the Carlist movement—ultimately prevailed. The question arises: where do the liberal ideas from the series of European revolutionary movements in the 19th century fit into the Philippine experience? Can De la Torre, as a proponent of this liberal movement, truly be seen as an agent of change, or does his affiliation with Carlist ideologies align him more with Spanish racism and arrogance, ultimately leading to Spain and Carlism claiming victory?

The essence of Carlism in the Philippines introduces a complex narrative where the extension of this conflict from Spain seems to be an internal dispute among Spaniards. The multitude of ideas and terms associated with Carlism only adds to the confusion in defining its true nature. Rizal, in dedicating El Filibusterismo to GOMBURZA, delves into the "Zeitgeist" or spirit of the time, shedding light on the nature of Carlism itself. He writes,

"The Church, by refusing to degrade you, has cast doubt on the crime imputed to you; the Government, by shrouding your trials in mystery and shadows, fosters the belief that errors were made in critical moments; and all of the Philippines, by venerating your memory and hailing you as martyrs, implicitly questions your culpability."

It's not merely a Carlist triumph but also a potentially orchestrated Carlist conspiracy. This reimagined perspective invites scrutiny into the intricate dynamics at play, urging us to reconsider the role of Carlist ideologies within the broader spectrum of colonial domination and resistance in the Philippine context.