Integrism is a Spanish political philosophy prominent during the late 19th and early 20th century. Rooted in conservative Catholic groupings like Neo-Catholics or Carlists, the Integrists represented the most right-wing formation of the Restoration political spectrum. Their vision discarded religious tolerance and embraced a state constructed along strictly Catholic lines.
The Integrists opposed Liberalism and the parliamentarian system, advocating an accidentalist organic regime. Led first by Ramón Nocedal Romea and then by Juan Olazábal Ramery they were active as a political structure named Partido Católico Nacional (also known as Partido Integrista), but the group retained influence mostly thanks to an array of periodicals, headed by the Madrid-based El Siglo Futuro. Though Integrism enjoyed some momentum when it formally emerged in the late 1880s, it was soon reduced to a third-rate political force and eventually amalgamated within Carlism in the early 1930s.
Origins
The role of religion and the Roman Catholic Church has been a point of heated political debate in Spain since the Napoleonic era, with waves of secularization and de-secularization following each other as the country was undergoing a half-century long, turbulent period of political instability.for an overview see Stanley G. Payne, Spanish Catholicism: An Historical Overview, Madison 1984, , 9780299098049, especially the chapter The Challenge of Liberalism, pp. 71-96; detailed discussion in Charles Patrick Foley, The Catholic-liberal struggle and the Church in Spain, 1834-76 [PhD thesis], University of New Mexico 1983 During declining years of the Isabelline monarchy of the 1860s different breeds of Liberalism sought to curtail the position of the Church still further.Payne 1984, pp. 93-96 They were most vehemently opposed by two political groupings, both considered Integrist predecessors.
The so-called neocatólicos was an intellectual movement initiated during the early Isabelline years;Begoña Urigüen, Orígenes y evolución de la derecha española: el neo-catolicismo, Madrid 1986, , 978840006157 its founding fathers, Juan Donoso Cortés and Jaime Balmes, tried to accommodate orthodox Catholicism within a framework of the liberal monarchy.Urigüen 1986, p. 54 With leaders like Antonio Aparisi, Cándido Nocedal, Francisco Navarro Villoslada, Gabino Tejado and Ramón Vinader,José Luis Orella Martínez, El origen del primer catolicismo social español [PhD thesis at Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia], Madrid 2012, p. 35 in the 1860s the neos strove to save the crumbling rule of Isabel II by building a grand, ultraconservative Catholic party.Urigüen 1986, p. 280 Their project crashed during the Glorious Revolution of 1868; in the early 1870s they concluded that the Liberal sway can no longer be confronted by constitutional monarchy and that a more radical response is needed.Urigüen 1986, p. 285
Carlism emerged as an ultraconservative, anti-liberal and fanatically Catholic opposition to the Isabelline monarchy.there is massive historiography on Carlism. For an iconic sample of a synthesis presenting an orthodox Carlist viewpoint see Román Oyarzun Oyarzun, Historia del carlismo, Madrid 2008, , 9788497614481; the period up to the 1860s is treated on pages 5-282. For two samples of scholarly synthesis (pursuing opposite views of Carlism and both highly criticised) see José Carlos Clemente, El Carlismo: historia de una disidencia social (1833–1976), Madrid 1990, , 9788434410923 and Jordi Canal i Morell, El carlismo: dos siglos de contrarrevolución en España, Madrid 2000, , 9788420639475 Advocating the dynastic claim of another Borbón branch, the Carlists, nominally led by successive claimants, repeatedly attempted to overthrow Isabel II by means of military insurgence.for the historiography of the Carlist wars see María Cruz Rubio Liniers, María Talavera Díaz, Bibliografías de Historia de España, vol. 13: El carlismo, Madrid 2012, , 9788400090135; for the First Carlist War see pp. 130-152, for the Second Carlist War see pp. 152-154 Unlike the neos, from the onset they refused to accept the rules of constitutional monarchy and advocated the regime of a pre-modern kingdom. The Carlist ideology, though also very much centered on religion, was not exclusively focused on it; their ideario also comprised the defense of traditional regional establishments and dynastic claims.works on Carlist ideology and the Church are listed in Rubio Liniers, Talavera Díaz 2012, pp. 93-98 While neos remained mostly a group of urban intellectuals, Carlism was powered by popular rural Catholicism, which dominated some regions of Spain.for a bibliography on the social basis of Carlism see Rubio Liniers, Talavera Díaz 2012, pp. 100-112
Integrism nascent, 1870–1888 The revolution of 1868, the brief rule of Amadeo I, the emergence of the First Spanish Republic and especially another wave of militantly secular Liberalism drew the neocatólicos and the Carlists together.Urigüen 1986, p. 380 Starting in 1870 the neos, led by Antonio Aparisi Guijarro, began to join Carlist political structures and abandoned a separate political project of their own.John N. Schumacher, Integrism. A Study in XIXth Century Spanish politico-religious Thought, [in:] Catholic Historical Review, 48/3 (1962), p. 344 Following the 1876 legitimist defeat in the Third Carlist War, with many traditional Carlist leaders being exiled or forced into seclusion,estimates of the number of exiled range from 12,500 to 20,000, see Jordi Canal i Morell, Banderas blancas, boinas rojas: una historia política del carlismo, 1876–1939, Madrid 2006, , 9788496467347, p. 64, Javier Real Cuesta, El Carlismo Vasco 1876–1900, Madrid 1985, , p. 1 it was the former Neo-Catholics, usually not compromised by military action, who gradually started to emerge as leading pundits of semi-legal Carlism.Agustín Fernández Escudero, El marqués de Cerralbo (1845–1922): biografía politica [PhD thesis], Madrid 2012, pp. 31-70
After death of Aparisi leadership of the group was assumed by Cándido Nocedal, already during the war the key Carlist representative on the Republic-controlled territory. As early as 1875 he set up the Madrid-based El Siglo Futuroits declared objectives were: “defender la integridad de los derechos de la Iglesia, propagar las doctrinas católicas y combatir los errores contrarios que en este siglo están en boga y abundan”, El Siglo Futuro 19.03.75, available here which soon turned into a combative press tribune, formatted as the semi-veiled Carlism-leaning orthodox Catholic daily.the front-page editorial in the first issue suggested that it was actually the 13th century which constituted a point of reference, see El Siglo Futuro 19.03.75 Within Carlism, Nocedal represented the trend known as inmovilismo or retraimiento,Jordi Canal i Morell, Las “muertes” y las “resurrecciones” del carlismo. Reflexiones sobre la escisión integrista de 1888, [in:] Ayer 38 (2000), p. 133 pursuing abstention in official political life and trying to mobilize support along purely Catholic lines, like the massive 1876 pilgrimage to Rome.Fernández Escudero 2012, p. 51-53; some authors claim that the pilgrimage was already an attempt to launch an all-Catholic ultraconservative party, Real Cuesta 1985, pp. 112-12 Prevailing over the competitive group known as aperturistas, in 1879 Nocedal was officially nominated the claimant's political representative and firmly focused Carlist activities on religious issues.Fernández Escudero 2012, pp. 53, 59, Real Cuesta 1985, p. 20 Opposition to Pidalistas, the Traditionalists who – guided by the principle of Catholic unity – accepted the Restoration project in the early 1880s helped to format the Nocedalistas as religious intransigents;Real Cuesta 1985, p. 29, José Fermín Garralda Arizcun, Primer siglo de carlismo en España (1833–1931). Luchas y esperanzas en épocas de aparente bonanza política, Pamplona 2013, p. 74, Schumacher 1962, pp. 345-6, Jose Ramon Barreiro Fernandez, El Carlismo Gallego, Santiago de Compostela 1976, , pp. 275-80 this was to be reflected in another pilgrimage, planned for 1882.Fernández Escudero 2012, p. 56
The course adopted by Nocedal and his son Ramón generated opposition within Carlism; many of its bigwigslike Cerralbo, Melgar, Valde-Espina and Sangarren, see Fernández Escudero 2012, pp. 55, 65-6, 81 grew anxious not only about Nocedals’ decisive leadership styleSangarren confessed that he bowed to “the tyranny of Cándido Nocedal” not only because the latter was appointed by the king, Fernández Escudero 2012, p. 81 but also because the movement had stalled in what they perceived was an ineffective intransigence and an apparent marginalization of other, traditional Carlist ideological threads.detailed discussion of the conflict in Fernández Escudero 2012, pp. 31-123 The conflict soon evolved into a bitter guerra periodistica,on El Siglo Futuro vs. La Fé see Fernández Escudero 2012, pp. 58-9, on El Siglo Futuro vs. El Fenix see Real Cuesta 1985, pp. 17-18 usually fought on religious grounds; titles supporting both factions claimed to have represented the genuine faith against the arbitrary usurpation of their opponents. The fray took a new turn when Cándido Nocedal died in 1885 and Ramón was not nominated his successor;Fernández Escudero 2012, p. 79, Román Oyarzun, Historia del Carlismo, Valladolid 2008, p. 393 the years leading to 1888 are marked by internal strife, decomposition and growing paralysis of Carlism.Fernández Escudero 2012, p. 101-102, Real Cuesta 1985, p. 66, Canal i Morell 2000, p. 118
1888 breakup In 1888 the usual skirmishes between Carlist newspapers suddenly explodedReal Cuesta 1985, p. 85 when the prestige of the claimant got involved.when anti-nocedalista La Fe referred to the claimant's Manifiesto de Morentín of 1875 instead of referring to the policy that should be followed at present, El Siglo Futuro responded by stating that the document was inspired by “mestizos” like Valentin Gomez and he also stated that it contained a dangerously liberal leaning. Carlos VII responded by publishing a document titled El Pensamiento del Duque de Madrid, pointing out that no paper can freely read his mind, Canal i Morell 2000, pp. 119-120 Because Nocedal refused to budge, in August, Carlos VII expelled him from Carlism.“Has faltado á tu mision de periodista monárquico y á tus deberes de súbdito leal, introduciendo en nuestro campo la discordia, con empeño que sólo iguala al que pongo yo en extinguirla”, wrote Carlos VII to Nocedal, quoted after Fernández Escudero 2012, p. 104. In turn, Nocedal referred to a traditional Carlist doctrine when he declared that the claimant possessed “legitimidad de origen pero no de ejercicio” Nocedal and his followers left to build their own political formation, soon to be known as Integrism. Though according to the traditional judgment the 1888 breakup resulted chiefly from Nocedal's overgrown ambitions or at best from the clash of personalities,Oyarzun 2008, pp. 532-533, Jaime del Burgo Torres, Carlos VIl y su tiempo, Pamplona 1994, pp. 328-9, Manuel Ferrer Muñoz, Los frustrados intentos de colaborar entre el partido nacionalista vasco y la derecha navarra durante la segunda república, [in:] Principe de Viana 49 (1988), p. 131 today most scholars agree that ideological conflict constituted an important if not a vital component of the secession.Canal i Morell 2000, pp. 134-5, Fernández Escudero 2012, p. 121