The Quito Rebellion

At the end of the 18th century, there were many revolts in the Spanish Americas, but these insurgencies didn’t have the intention to bring independence, in fact they fought corrupt officials and the implementation of the Bourbon reforms, in the name of the king. These revolts didn’t evolve into movements of independence because of the remoteness of the cities that they occurred in and the magnitude of the Spanish Americas, the Bourbon reforms weren’t set in place at the same time in all places, so people weren’t discontent simultaneously, there were deep social divisions at the time, and the political theory and ideas that these movements had weren’t those of independence. Although this was true, a few decades later in the early 19th century,

For example, the Quito rebellion, had limited repercussions because of the city’s remoteness, according to Elliott. The author describes Quito as a lonesome city in the Andean highlands and that despite being incorporated into the viceroyalty of New Granada, it took eight to ten weeks to reach the viceroyalty’s capital. Furthermore, a few decades later, the Tupac Amaru Rebellion in Peru, which encompassed a bigger territory, still didn’t have a big enough impact on the rest of the Spanish Americas to evoke independence. This rebellion stretched from Cuzco to Lake Titicaca, but barely touched the warm valleys to the north and the northeast of Cuzco. Since these revolts, occurred in the Andes mountains, it was difficult for the fighting to spread to other places because of the high altitudes of these locations. Not only that, but at the same time these revolts were very localized and had specific purposes. The Quito rebellion was an anti-tax revolt, and the Tupac Amaru rebellion wanted to fight the mita labor draft, the Bourbon reforms, and wanted to reinstitute Inca rule reigning in the name of the Spanish king. These intentions along with the high altitudes, prevented the rebellions from spreading to other areas because people in other places may have not known of the fighting, or if they knew about them, the incentive of the fighting didn’t affect them. Under those

Also, despite the dislike of the Bourbon reforms, the citizens of these lands still saw themselves as part of Spain. To illustrate, Quito’s first wave of opposition, was a confrontation between the urban patriciate and the government. However, Quito’s second riot was more violent, anti-European and anti-government, the enmity of the poor against the wealthy. This marked a shift in the rebels’ goals and their targets; the Spaniards that had fought in the previous rebellions, were now being threatened in the second riot. This not only caused urban patriciate Spaniards to retreat from the fighting, but it also started to divide the rebels as differences over how Europeans should be treated arose. This was also the case in the Tupac Amaru rebellion, which had started as a multiethnic and multiclass movement, but as time passed, it became an indigenous uprising that endangered Creoles and Mestizos. Furthermore, the Bourbon reforms, had different repercussions for different types of people. McFarlane writes that the estanco in Quito provoked antagonism from hacendados who produced the sugar from which aguardiente was distilled, while the alcabala aroused hostility among small householders and traders. This then meant, that people weren’t fighting towards a common goal since different parts of the reforms affected them. Finally, the